AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

business receipts in the financial statements. These books have been purchased from the other concerns and were supplied to the students on behalf of the Universities. Thus, the assessee has received sale consideration for sale of books of over Rs. 14 crore from its associate concerns. The assessee has also made purchases from these Universities for the books supplied

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

business receipts in the financial statements. These books have been purchased from the other concerns and were supplied to the students on behalf of the Universities. Thus, the assessee has received sale consideration for sale of books of over Rs. 14 crore from its associate concerns. The assessee has also made purchases from these Universities for the books supplied

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

business receipts in the financial statements. These books have been purchased from the other concerns and were supplied to the students on behalf of the Universities. Thus, the assessee has received sale consideration for sale of books of over Rs. 14 crore from its associate concerns. The assessee has also made purchases from these Universities for the books supplied

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

business receipts in the financial statements. These books have been purchased from the other concerns and were supplied to the students on behalf of the Universities. Thus, the assessee has received sale consideration for sale of books of over Rs. 14 crore from its associate concerns. The assessee has also made purchases from these Universities for the books supplied

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

business income being on higher side when compared with that of immediate earlier year was clearly attributed to the fact that in the month of October 2016 auspicious festivals of “Pusha Nakshatra” and “Dhanteras" fell on 23.10.2016 and 28.10.2016 respectively when people flocked to make heavy purchases on these days due to the auspicious reasons. On 8th November

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. FERRO CONCRETE CON INDIA PVT. LTD., INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Ferro Concrete Con India Income-Tax Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ 3/5/7B, Bhagirathpura Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacf2726K Revenueby Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

business of executing construction contracts of dams, bridges, etc. For AY 2019-20 under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income u/s 139 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,20,48,700/- which was assessed. Subsequently, based on information received from ITO-1(3)(1), Mathura revealing tax evasion being done through issuance of bogus sales/purchase bills

INCOME TAX OFFICER -4(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. HAMID HUSAIN, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

business filed a return showing a total income of Rs.9,13,720 for AY 2021-22. The AO disallowed 100% of the purchases amounting to Rs.9,10,39,185, treating them as bogus

HAMID HUSAIN,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiito-4(1), Hamid Husain, बनाम/ Bhopal 369, Kaji Camp, Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Hamid Husain, Assessment Unit, बनाम/ 369, Kaji Camp, Income Tax Department Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

business of iron scarp. For AY 2021-22, the assessee filed return declaring a total income of Rs. 9,13,720/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny for verification of transactions. The AO issued statutory notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and show-causes notices but most of the notices remained uncompiled by assessee except that in response

MATHARLAL MUNGALAL AGRAWAL,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO, KHANDWA

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchases in the books of account and thereby claimed a false business-deduction. Then, he argued that any kind of bogus-deduction is not allowed under the scheme of Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OIL LTD. , VILLAGE KHEDA, PITHAMPUR

In the result, all the three grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed and ITANo

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2012-13 Dcit(Central)-1 M/S Prakash Oil Ltd. Village Indore Kheda, Pithampur, बनाम/ Distt:Dhar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aabcp8087G

Income Tax Inspector posted in range-1 Indore, was also Prakash Oil Limited directed to file a report after visiting the business premises of M/s Unique Enterprises. Finally, ld. AO came to a conclusion that the alleged purchases of Rs.2,42,90,382/- made from M/s. Unique Enterprises are bogus

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

business of reporting and monitoring as agencies as well as deriving income from purchase and sale of share and securities. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 16.12.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 5,02,650/-. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 31st March

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

business of reporting and monitoring as agencies as well as deriving income from purchase and sale of share and securities. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 16.12.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 5,02,650/-. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 31st March

SHRI SANJAY GUPTA,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

business and profession. Appellant purchased and sold shares through recognised stock exchange and on ITA No.839/ Ind/ 2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 2 of 6 prevailing/market price and thus there being double addition of the same income. 5. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing officer and Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

RAJVEER LEAF SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,PALDA. INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT- 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajveer Leaf Springs Dcit/Acit-4(1), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. D-405, Shubh City, Palda, Indore

income filed was at Rs.2,90,304/-. The addition on account of bogus purchase u/s 69C was at Rs.4,62,63,870/-. Some of the observations of the Ld. A.O is reproduced by us as below:- “4.1 In response to notice issued, the assessee stated that The DGCI had conducted a search at our business

SWAN PETRCHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

purchase and sale of the particular commodity is within the difference of few seconds therefore, there is no dispute on this fact that the loss of Rs.44,57,310/- claimed by the assessee in the return of income as business loss is a speculative loss and impermissible to set off against the business income

M/S SHREE BALAJI LANDMARK HOTELS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 M/S Shree Balaji Landmark Hotel Private Limited Indore ::: Appellant Vs Acit 3(1) Indore ::: Respondent Appellant By Shri Pankaj Shah Respondent By Shri K.G. Goyal Date Of Hearing 4.6.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 8.6.2018 O R D E R Per Shri Manish Borad, Am

bogus purchases of Rs. 2,55,150/-. From the perusal of record we find that the assessee declared 4 Shri Balaji Landmark income of Rs. 2,50,50,083/- and is engaged in the business

SANGITA LALWANI,ITARSI vs. ITO 1, ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisangita Lalwani, Ito 1, बनाम/ Gali No.03, Sindhi Colony

Bogus Purchases, sundry creditors and the unsecured loans in respect of which additions were made by the “Impugned Assessment Order” that the same were sustained by the “Impugned Order”. (3.3) In so far as issue of Notice u/s 148A(2) was concerned the Assessee did not file any reply there to. (3.4) It was submitted that the Assessee

JAI PRAKASH SHAHANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradjai Prakashshahani, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Jai Prakash Impex, Nfac, Delhi Vs. 73, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apqps7948G Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025

bogus purchase transaction of Rs.1,94,07,890/- escaped from levy of tax but Ld. A.O has finally accepted the genuineness of the purchases made from M/s Garima Enterprises to the extent of the copies of invoices furnished by the assessee and only for the amount of purchases of Rs.31,60,087/- for which the assessee failed to furnish

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

business income. Therefore, the AO is not justified in treating the impugned cash as deemed income u/s 69A. (ii) The second contention raised by Ld. AR is such that the AO has imposed penalty u/s 271AAB qua the impugned income through Penalty- order dated 26.06.2019, copy of order is re-produced below for an immediate reference: Page