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

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bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission.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

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

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

THE JCIT RANGE-3, INDORE vs. SHRI AMANDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jcit, Range-3 Shri Amandeep Singh Indore Bhatia बनाम/ 8/5, Bcc House, Manoramaganj, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Agopb 3205 E Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ar Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

penalty by SEBI on Shyam who had no role except purchase of shares in the year 2004-05. (iv) Regarding case history of assessee, we have perused the order of Co- ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in IT(SS)A No. 112 to 115/Ind/2011 (supra) and are very in very much agreement with Ld. AR that the identical

RAMA GARG,SEHORE vs. DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rama Garg, Dcit-3(1), Gadhi Chok, Bhopal Chota Bazar, Vs. Nasrullaganj, Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abcpg1140J Assessee By Shri R.K. Mangal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024

purchases however, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of electricity 2 Smt. Rama Garg charges has been confirmed by this Tribunal and consequently the CIT(A) has restricted the penalty to the extent of disallowance of electricity expenses. 5. Before the Tribunal Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the electricity expenses claimed by the assessee

KHANDWA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ACIT, KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Khandwa Industries Pvt. Ld., Acit, G-2 Amans Corner, Khandwa बनाम/ 301, Goyal Vihar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aadck4103G Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025

bogus expenditure and the same will be added to your total income. In his reply uploaded on 19.12.2019, the assessee has mentioned that in this connection we hereby draw your kind attention that the assessee company had neither purchased any goods nor sale any unit in the open market. Further we would like to draw your kind attention that

DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MANIDHARI JEWELLERS, BHOPAL

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-3(1), Manidhari Jewellers, बनाम/ Bhopal Room No.202, Vs. Metro Walk Bulding, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Abafm6546L) (Revenue) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

purchase bill related to Manidhari jewellers could be found. In the succeeding year as well, assessee and M/s R. B. Enterprises has entered into only two transactions and. therefore there is no regular business between the two. 2.12 That in view of the above discussions and premises drawn up by us the Ld. A.O has held that the impugned sale

SEEMA LUNAWAT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated\nseparately for concealment of income\".\nDuring first-appeal, the CIT(A) has upheld AO's order.\nBefore us, Ld. AR for assessee has filed following Written-Submission,\niterated the contents of same during hearing and urged to delete the\naddition wrongly made by AO:\n\"WRITTEN SUBMISSION\nThe appellant respectfully submits

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus losses or gain for the beneficiaries / clients and relying on such reports of DIT (I&CI) dated 04.02.2014 and the fact that the NMCE exchange has imposed penalties on the brokers for CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 their misconduct and disallowed the loss of Rs. 5,44,57,527/- through these brokers as non-genuine claim. Thereafter, during the course

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus losses or gain for the beneficiaries / clients and relying on such reports of DIT (I&CI) dated 04.02.2014 and the fact that the NMCE exchange has imposed penalties on the brokers for CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 their misconduct and disallowed the loss of Rs. 5,44,57,527/- through these brokers as non-genuine claim. Thereafter, during the course

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus losses or gain for the beneficiaries / clients and relying on such reports of DIT (I&CI) dated 04.02.2014 and the fact that the NMCE exchange has imposed penalties on the brokers for CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 their misconduct and disallowed the loss of Rs. 5,44,57,527/- through these brokers as non-genuine claim. Thereafter, during the course

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

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

bogus\npurchases without any evidence\ncannot be a basis for rejection of\nbooks of account.\n1.5) The assessing authority vide Para 7.8 and 7.9 at page 15 of\nAssessment order applied gross profit rate of 7.20% being average gross\nprofit earned in preceding three years viz. A.Y. 2018-19 (7.92%), 2019-20\n(7.71%) & 2020-21(5.96%) based on above