SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

bogus, not entire amount covered under such purchases but profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. 6.If the purchases are rejected, the sales would also be reduced. The goods of the appellant are subject to excise. Quantitative details were given with the return of income (alongwith Auditor's report in Form No. 3CD). To illustrative the quantitative data

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

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

bogus purchases- Sales not doubted, merely because suppliers not appeared before the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), purchases cannot be disallowed

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

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

bogus purchases- Sales not doubted, merely because suppliers not appeared before the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), purchases cannot be disallowed

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

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

bogus purchases- Sales not doubted, merely because suppliers not appeared before the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), purchases cannot be disallowed

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

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

bogus purchases- Sales not doubted, merely because suppliers not appeared before the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), purchases cannot be disallowed

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed 100% of the purchases amounting to Rs.9,10,39,185, treating them as bogus. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance

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)

disallowance of Rs. 9,10,39,185/- equivalent to entire 100% purchases made by assessee from 6 suppliers treating the same as bogus

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

bogus purchases) without actual transfer of goods. Thus, any purchases made from Mr. Narendra Singh or Mr. Elesh agrawal is required to be disallowed

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 made from M/s Garima Enterprises but finally after carrying out the reassessment proceedings has accepted the genuineness of the purchase and has not invoked Section 69C of the Act applicable for unexplained expenditure and has concluded the proceedings only by making minor disallowance

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

bogus purchases, a decision later affirmed by the Supreme Court. In CIT v. La Medical Devices Ltd. (250 ITR 575), the Delhi High Court ruled that when purchases are shown to be non-genuine, the entire amount is to be disallowed

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

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

KISHAN RAM VISHNOI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed in terms mentioned

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

disallowances to gross-profit element @ G.P. rate of 8% of bogus purchases and thereby reduced disallowances to Rs. 4,06,884/- [8% of Rs. 50,86,050/-] and Rs. 6,17,235/- [8% of Rs. 73,15,444/-] respectively

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

bogus purchase @ 6%. The Tribunal has upheld the action of AO and the ld. CIT(A) for disallowance of 6% of purchase

KISHAN RAM VISHNOI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed in terms mentioned\nabove

bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for 100% of the purchase value. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance

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 party in the name of Gajendra Singh, Proprietor M/s National Metals with all its supporting proofs of goods transportation with delivery challans etc and in the absence of the same and as the same is not substantiated by Mr. gajendra Singh as involving genuine purchase of appellant contrary to the findings of search etc. AO treated the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus payments as these contractors have the PAN and also operating their bank accounts which proved the identities. Therefore, 34 the disallowance on this point was not justified. Regarding the disallowance of 10% from the other payments, we find that the contractors had worked and the TDS was made from the payments but the Assessing Officer unjustifiably disallowed these payments

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus payments as these contractors have the PAN and also operating their bank accounts which proved the identities. Therefore, 34 the disallowance on this point was not justified. Regarding the disallowance of 10% from the other payments, we find that the contractors had worked and the TDS was made from the payments but the Assessing Officer unjustifiably disallowed these payments

PRIME CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

bogus purchase from the Radha Rani Trader has been decided in favour of the assessee and the matter is Page 6 of 7 Prime Construction A.Y. 2018-19 directed back to Ld. AO to determine the disallowance