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

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

bogus and they have been used as a conduit to inflate the purchases. Ld. A.O also observed that related/sister concerns are involved in this round manner of purchases in which sister concern of the assessee has sold study material to various sellers from whom assessee has shown purchase and money received from such supplies is again routed back to sister

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

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

bogus and they have been used as a conduit to inflate the purchases. Ld. A.O also observed that related/sister concerns are involved in this round manner of purchases in which sister concern of the assessee has sold study material to various sellers from whom assessee has shown purchase and money received from such supplies is again routed back to sister

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

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

bogus and they have been used as a conduit to inflate the purchases. Ld. A.O also observed that related/sister concerns are involved in this round manner of purchases in which sister concern of the assessee has sold study material to various sellers from whom assessee has shown purchase and money received from such supplies is again routed back to sister

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

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

bogus and they have been used as a conduit to inflate the purchases. Ld. A.O also observed that related/sister concerns are involved in this round manner of purchases in which sister concern of the assessee has sold study material to various sellers from whom assessee has shown purchase and money received from such supplies is again routed back to sister

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

bogus expenditure on account of purchase of M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 Bitumen and then inflated the project cost and concluded that the appellant had made a wrong claim on account of expenditure incurred against cost of the project under consideration and is in default for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income and levied a penalty

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

deduction under Section 80I of the Act which the Assessing Officer allowed partially. The assessee filed an appeal against the disallowance. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. Subsequently, the Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act, disallowed the claim under Section 80I of the Act on the ground that the assets used by the assessee

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

purchase of house of Rs. 781853 and cost of improvement of Rs. 11 5000 for which indexed cost comes to Rs. 204 707 as such has denied the deduction of Rs. 98 6560 treating the same as bogus

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

deducted sum of Rs.20,00,000/- which was offered under PMGKY (Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana) which was a part of undisclosed income and has finally computed Rs.3,43,59,000/- as unexplainable amount as no creditable sources are provided for in the support of such a huge cash deposit. It was contended that burden of proof with regard

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

bogus or not genuine. In support of his contention he has relied upon following decisions: 1.Bengal Peerless Housing Devat. Co. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income (Circle -7) (1), Kolkata (2019) 103 Taxmann 298 (Kolkata Trib) 2.Bharat Earth Movers v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 112 Taxmann 61 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alembic Glass Industries (Tax Appeal

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

deduction claimed in the return, therefore, be kindly allowed. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice to ground no.4 above even it it is held that there was a payment to Vijay Ramani the total denial of exemption u/s11/12 is neither justified nor unlawful. 6. That on the facts

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

deduction claimed in the return, therefore, be kindly allowed. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice to ground no.4 above even it it is held that there was a payment to Vijay Ramani the total denial of exemption u/s11/12 is neither justified nor unlawful. 6. That on the facts

PRATAP BAJAJ,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

purchase was deducted giving rise of LTCG at Rs.28,47,833/-. However, Ld. A.O was not satisfied since in his view the extent of growth and financials of the company were not sufficient to justify the abnormal increase in the share price within a short span of time, which were very low in December, 2012 and then increased continuously

MANORAMA DEVI SHARMA,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

purchase was deducted giving rise of LTCG at Rs.28,47,833/-. However, Ld. A.O was not satisfied since in his view the extent of growth and financials of the company were not sufficient to justify the abnormal increase in the share price within a short span of time, which were very low in December, 2012 and then increased continuously

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

purchase was deducted giving rise of LTCG at Rs.28,47,833/-. However, Ld. A.O was not satisfied since in his view the extent of growth and financials of the company were not sufficient to justify the abnormal increase in the share price within a short span of time, which were very low in December, 2012 and then increased continuously

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

purchase was deducted giving rise of LTCG at Rs.28,47,833/-. However, Ld. A.O was not satisfied since in his view the extent of growth and financials of the company were not sufficient to justify the abnormal increase in the share price within a short span of time, which were very low in December, 2012 and then increased continuously

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

purchase was deducted giving rise of LTCG at Rs.28,47,833/-. However, Ld. A.O was not satisfied since in his view the extent of growth and financials of the company were not sufficient to justify the abnormal increase in the share price within a short span of time, which were very low in December, 2012 and then increased continuously

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

purchase was deducted giving rise of LTCG at Rs.28,47,833/-. However, Ld. A.O was not satisfied since in his view the extent of growth and financials of the company were not sufficient to justify the abnormal increase in the share price within a short span of time, which were very low in December, 2012 and then increased continuously

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

purchase was deducted giving rise of LTCG at Rs.28,47,833/-. However, Ld. A.O was not satisfied since in his view the extent of growth and financials of the company were not sufficient to justify the abnormal increase in the share price within a short span of time, which were very low in December, 2012 and then increased continuously