THE DCIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SMT PRITIBEN PATEL, BARWANI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Central-2 Smt. Pritiben Patel Indore Subhash Choak, Khetiya, Barwani Vs. Maharashtra

bogus sales with a view to introduce unaccounted income in the cash book to justify the cash deposit made in the bank account during the demonetization period. Accordingly the AO has made the addition of the entire deposit of Rs.1,37,25,500/-. It is pertinent to note that the AO has even not considered the undisputed normal purchase

OMPRAKASH JAISWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT-1(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee\nduring the demonetization period. He pointed out that even the purchases of\nthe assessee were held by the AO to be all cooked up. The Id. Counsel for the\nassessee contended that none of his findings with regard to the sales and\npurchases being bogus

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

purchases and cash sales as well as cash deposited by the assessee, came to the conclusion that it was in fitness of things to add the profit element embedded in the alleged bogus

DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MANIDHARI JEWELLERS, BHOPAL

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-3(1), Manidhari Jewellers, बनाम/ Bhopal Room No.202, Vs. Metro Walk Bulding, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Abafm6546L) (Revenue) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

bogus sales made by it to 7 parties & not on the basis of any purchase made by it from appellant amounting to Rs. 2,34,50,000/-. Moreover, he has also admitted that cash deposited

SHRI M A KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A Nos.37 To 42/Ind/2015 & Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2010-11 Late M.A. Khan Acit 3(1) (Through L/H Nazhat Bhopal Parveen Khan) बनाम/ B-90, Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aewpk 3620 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

purchase of property. Thus, all ingredients as required by Ld. AO are satisfied. At this stage, we would also like to mention that the apprehension raised by Ld. AO with respect to non-filing of return and not getting accounts audited by M/s Rajveer Ltd. are also answered by the statements of Shri Sanjeev Lunkad wherein he has categorically stated

MATHARLAL MUNGALAL AGRAWAL,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO, KHANDWA

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

deposited in that bank account and immediately on the very same dates,the sum of Rs. 14,00,000/-; Rs. 7,68,000/-; and Rs. 8,31,500/- were cash-withdrawn through self-cheques. Ld. AO has reported abstract of bank account Page No.4 of the assessment-order. These all evidencesand circumstances led theLd. AO to observe that the purchases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, MEGHNAGAR DIST. JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

bogus. The AO is not justified in making the addition without rejecting the books of account of the appellant. The AO has not rejected the books of account and not pointed out any specific defect. The appellant's books of account are audited u/s 44AB of the IT Act. All the expenses are duly recorded and entered

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

bogus. The AO is not justified in making the addition without rejecting the books of account of the appellant. The AO has not rejected the books of account and not pointed out any specific defect. The appellant's books of account are audited u/s 44AB of the IT Act. All the expenses are duly recorded and entered

KUNAL VYAS,INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), IND, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

cash deposit was made during the period under consideration in the books of accounts of the appellant. (5) Because the learned AO as also the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that once the appellant produces evidence to support his case, the burden to prove that there is a sum credited in the books of the appellant which is either unexplained

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

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

deposited was also obtained from the respective suppliers and submitted. (It may be mentioned that in none of the bank statements any cash is found withdrawn which may raise a possibility that the amount paid by the assessee company was routed back to it in a clandestine manner xiv. The party wise detail of the purchase made

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

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

deposited was also obtained from the respective suppliers and submitted. (It may be mentioned that in none of the bank statements any cash is found withdrawn which may raise a possibility that the amount paid by the assessee company was routed back to it in a clandestine manner xiv. The party wise detail of the purchase made

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

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

deposited was also obtained from the respective suppliers and submitted. (It may be mentioned that in none of the bank statements any cash is found withdrawn which may raise a possibility that the amount paid by the assessee company was routed back to it in a clandestine manner xiv. The party wise detail of the purchase made

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

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

deposited was also obtained from the respective suppliers and submitted. (It may be mentioned that in none of the bank statements any cash is found withdrawn which may raise a possibility that the amount paid by the assessee company was routed back to it in a clandestine manner xiv. The party wise detail of the purchase made

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain. 4. The Revenue’s allegation that investigation was carried out by various authorities and SEBI and that it was concluded that prices of the scrip has been whooping due to insider trading does not apply to the assessee. Even if the company indulge itself into money laundering

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain. 4. The Revenue’s allegation that investigation was carried out by various authorities and SEBI and that it was concluded that prices of the scrip has been whooping due to insider trading does not apply to the assessee. Even if the company indulge itself into money laundering

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain. 4. The Revenue’s allegation that investigation was carried out by various authorities and SEBI and that it was concluded that prices of the scrip has been whooping due to insider trading does not apply to the assessee. Even if the company indulge itself into money laundering

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain. 4. The Revenue’s allegation that investigation was carried out by various authorities and SEBI and that it was concluded that prices of the scrip has been whooping due to insider trading does not apply to the assessee. Even if the company indulge itself into money laundering

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain. 4. The Revenue’s allegation that investigation was carried out by various authorities and SEBI and that it was concluded that prices of the scrip has been whooping due to insider trading does not apply to the assessee. Even if the company indulge itself into money laundering