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

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

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

THE ACIT, -2(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. SHRINIWAS BOARD AND PAPER PVT. LTD., UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Dcit 2(1), M/S Shriniwas Board & Ujjain Vs. Paper Pvt. Ltd, 68 Industrial Area, Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue) (Respondent ) Pan Aaccs7555D Revenue By Shri K.G. Goel, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Date Of Hearing 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 01.04.2019 O R D E R

deduction u/s 80IB(3)(ii) Rs.9,71,271/- (ii) Bogus purchase Rs.25,84,608/- (iii) Purchased inflated Rs.33,78,921 Total

SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN SACHDEVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos.857 & 858/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Chandra Mohan Assistant Commissioner Sachdeva, Of Income-Tax, E-5/59, Arera Colony, Vs. 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal

purchase of eggs for Rs. 4,53,720/- and birds for Rs. 3,07,800/- during the period 2004 to July 2004 were bogus and represented unexplained expenses of the appellant and in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,61,520/- ( -: 3 :- Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal. correctly Rs. 7,61,520/-) towards the same in the hands

SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN SACHDEVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos.857 & 858/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Chandra Mohan Assistant Commissioner Sachdeva, Of Income-Tax, E-5/59, Arera Colony, Vs. 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal

purchase of eggs for Rs. 4,53,720/- and birds for Rs. 3,07,800/- during the period 2004 to July 2004 were bogus and represented unexplained expenses of the appellant and in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,61,520/- ( -: 3 :- Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal. correctly Rs. 7,61,520/-) towards the same in the hands

THE ACIT CIRCLE,RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

bogus purchases of Rs.51,116/-. Assessee filed necessary submissions which could not find any favour of the assessing officer. Reassessment proceedings were completed after disallowing deduction

THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

bogus purchases of Rs.51,116/-. Assessee filed necessary submissions which could not find any favour of the assessing officer. Reassessment proceedings were completed after disallowing deduction

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 SANJAY SOMANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for all

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena, Accountant & Shri O.P.Meena & Shri O.P.Meena, Accountant & Shri O.P.Meenamember Member

deducting nominal commission ranging from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 40/- per ton iron. During the course of post search enquiries, it was found that the assessee had declared purchase of iron and steel from the above parties. It is found that the assessee had shown purchases from the above entry providers for Rs. 3,14,50,484/-. Accordingly, the case

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

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

purchased in the year 1995-96 for Rs. 37,41,930/- and therefore indexed cost of acquisition came to Rs. 1,36,36,072/-. After deducting indexed cost of Rs. 1,36,36,072/- against the sale-consideration of Rs. 56,12,895/-, the assessee suffered a capital loss of Rs. 80,23,177/- which the assessee claimed

NEELAM MITTAL,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

deduction of purchase cost of Rs.6000/- was claimed and the net gain is claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act at Rs.16,48,277/-. The similar amount of purchase and sale and LTCG is shown in the case of Ritu Mittal. In both these cases the purchases were made offline in cash and sale affected on a recognized stock

RITU MITTAL,BURHANPUR vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

deduction of purchase cost of Rs.6000/- was claimed and the net gain is claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act at Rs.16,48,277/-. The similar amount of purchase and sale and LTCG is shown in the case of Ritu Mittal. In both these cases the purchases were made offline in cash and sale affected on a recognized stock