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)

bogus purchases is hereby added to the income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under section 270A of the I.T. Act are also

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

penalty proceedings as attributable to such additions as not maintainable. Precisely in all these GOA, appellant is contending that AO erred in making additions on account of explainable purchases as involving bogus

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are separately initiated. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act, Page 2 of 7 Prime Construction A.Y. 2018-19 before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned order” has partly allowed, the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein

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:

penalty proceedings becomes void ab initio. On merit it was contended that the alleged amount of bogus purchase of bitumen

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

penalty show cause notice, the AO noted that it is not the case of a remission of profit as the assessee has submitted inaccurate particulars showing that the purchases were made from bogus

SHRI DILIP KUMAR JAIN S/O. SAMRATHMAL JAIN,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos. 529 & 530/Ind/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Dilip Kumar Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, S/O Shri Samrathmal Indore. Jain, Prop. M/S. Shree Kshemkari Steel, 559, Ushanagar Extn., Indore अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Abjrj8096M

bogus purchases from the material available on record, it appeared that the Tax Audit Report and books of account were accepted by the Assessing Officer without pointing out any defect, Accordingly, the sale was accepted by the department. The sale could not be made without making purchase, in other words, when there was a sale, certainly there was a purchase

SHRI DILIP KUMAR JAIN S/O. SAMRATHMAL JAIN,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos. 529 & 530/Ind/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Dilip Kumar Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, S/O Shri Samrathmal Indore. Jain, Prop. M/S. Shree Kshemkari Steel, 559, Ushanagar Extn., Indore अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Abjrj8096M

bogus purchases from the material available on record, it appeared that the Tax Audit Report and books of account were accepted by the Assessing Officer without pointing out any defect, Accordingly, the sale was accepted by the department. The sale could not be made without making purchase, in other words, when there was a sale, certainly there was a purchase

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

bogus purchase. 4. The learned AO erred in adding Rs 3,990/- as interest income, whereas the assessee firm already disclosed higher Interest income in the books of account. The source information/ evidence also not provided while making the addition 5. The learned AO also not provided the opportunity of cross verification of the purchasing dealer, whereas the same

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission. He also failed to substantiate any genuine trading activity in grains as claimed by him. 3.1. Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 25.04.2021 declaring

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission. He also failed to substantiate any genuine trading activity in grains as claimed by him. 3.1. Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 25.04.2021 declaring

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission. He also failed to substantiate any genuine trading activity in grains as claimed by him. 3.1. Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 25.04.2021 declaring

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that search u/s 132 of the Act were conducted at the residence

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM 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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that search u/s 132 of the Act were conducted at the residence

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, 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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that search u/s 132 of the Act were conducted at the residence

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Penalty u/s 271AAC of\nthe Act is being initiated on this issue separately.\"\n7. During first-appeal, the assessee filed a detailed submission to CIT(A)\nbut the CIT(A) has merely upheld AO's order without giving independent\nadjudication.\n8. Before us, Ld. AR for assessee referred the assessment-order passed\nby AO (as re-produced above) and submitted

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), UJJAIN (STATIONED AT INDORE), UJJAIN vs. M/S. JPJ EXIM (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

bogus, no penalty can be imposed. 4.1.6 It has been held by Hon'ble M.P. High Court which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9, that where the assessee filed revised return showing higher income after search and notice for re-opening of assessment to purchases

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

bogus long term capital gain as the assessee claimed purchase of these shares off market and thereafter these were dematerialized Page 7 of 51 ITANo.470/Ind/2023 Sadhuram Balani just before the sale at steep rise of share price about 25 times of the purchase price. This shows that it is not a normal transaction of purchase and sale of shares

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

purchases of marbles from unregistered dealers to the extent of Rs.2,26,000/ (Rupees two lakhs twenty six thousand only). Resultantly, the said transactions were assumed as bogus entries (standing to the credit of named dealers who were none existent creditors of the assessee). 14. However, it has now come on record that the appellant/assessee in penalty