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

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

bogus purchases were made. ix. Copy of sales tax orders of the aforesaid entities duly confirming the purchase/sales made by suppliers. x. Copy of sales tax order of the assessee company duly confirming the sale of the assessee. xi. Names of all the suppliers, address of the suppliers, name of the contact persons, their telephone Number along with documentary proof

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

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

bogus purchases were made. ix. Copy of sales tax orders of the aforesaid entities duly confirming the purchase/sales made by suppliers. x. Copy of sales tax order of the assessee company duly confirming the sale of the assessee. xi. Names of all the suppliers, address of the suppliers, name of the contact persons, their telephone Number along with documentary proof

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

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

bogus purchases were made. ix. Copy of sales tax orders of the aforesaid entities duly confirming the purchase/sales made by suppliers. x. Copy of sales tax order of the assessee company duly confirming the sale of the assessee. xi. Names of all the suppliers, address of the suppliers, name of the contact persons, their telephone Number along with documentary proof

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

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

bogus purchases were made. ix. Copy of sales tax orders of the aforesaid entities duly confirming the purchase/sales made by suppliers. x. Copy of sales tax order of the assessee company duly confirming the sale of the assessee. xi. Names of all the suppliers, address of the suppliers, name of the contact persons, their telephone Number along with documentary proof

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 purchase transactions. 4. The appellant craves leave to add any new ground of appeal or alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal”. 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 20.11.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and interalia

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. The whole basis of making the addition is third party statement without there being any tangible material. It is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. The whole basis of making the addition is third party statement without there being any tangible material. It is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. The whole basis of making the addition is third party statement without there being any tangible material. It is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. The whole basis of making the addition is third party statement without there being any tangible material. It is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

natural justice and may very kindly be quashed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT has erred in maintaining the disallowance of Rs. 31,641/- on account of alleged bogus brokerage expense. 3. That the appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter, abandon or substitute any of the above

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

natural justice and may very kindly be quashed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT has erred in maintaining the disallowance of Rs. 31,641/- on account of alleged bogus brokerage expense. 3. That the appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter, abandon or substitute any of the above

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

natural justice and may very kindly be quashed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT has erred in maintaining the disallowance of Rs. 31,641/- on account of alleged bogus brokerage expense. 3. That the appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter, abandon or substitute any of the above

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

natural justice, without\nreference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given\ncase, can be exasperating We can neither be finical nor fanatical but\nshould be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit\nbelow the bell that is the conscience of the matter.”\n3.5 The Ld. DR for the revenue then invited attention

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:

natural justice assessee deserves to be show caused for the specific default which in the instant case is not clear from above referred show cause notice. 10. We further note that Ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the fact on merits held that penalty is not leviable as no addition was made and on legal ground assessee’s case is covered

SHIVALAYA ENGINEERING WORKS,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO, BHOPAL

In the result we are of the considered opinion

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishivalaya Engineering Works, Ito बनाम/ E-75A, New Industrial Area, Bhopal Vs. Mandideep Huzur, Polaha, B.O. Raisen, (Pan:Acifs4103J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Natural Justice. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in adding the Purchase From M/s Texmo International bill dated 28/03/2018 as bogus

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

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

natural justice. 4. From perusal of the grounds on merits, we find that additions by the Ld. A.O has been made denying the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain from sale of shares adding estimate brokerage expenses and in case of assessee Shri Darshan Kumar Pahwa rejecting the claim of Short Term Capital loss

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

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

natural justice. 4. From perusal of the grounds on merits, we find that additions by the Ld. A.O has been made denying the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain from sale of shares adding estimate brokerage expenses and in case of assessee Shri Darshan Kumar Pahwa rejecting the claim of Short Term Capital loss

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

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

natural justice. 4. From perusal of the grounds on merits, we find that additions by the Ld. A.O has been made denying the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain from sale of shares adding estimate brokerage expenses and in case of assessee Shri Darshan Kumar Pahwa rejecting the claim of Short Term Capital loss

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

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

natural justice. 4. From perusal of the grounds on merits, we find that additions by the Ld. A.O has been made denying the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain from sale of shares adding estimate brokerage expenses and in case of assessee Shri Darshan Kumar Pahwa rejecting the claim of Short Term Capital loss