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

reassessment proceedings since those notices were in their knowledge as they were served physically. However, show cause notices and order passed by the Ld Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Indore was never served physically to the appellant as a result of which the appellant was totally unaware of the fact that show cause notices had been issued and order

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bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission.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bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission.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bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission.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

KUNAL VYAS,INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), IND, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus resulting in unexplained investment entries, particularly when income returned has been accepted by AO. 9) Because, the impugned assessment order is without jurisdiction being non est in law on account of non-observance of the mandatory statutory procedure laid down under the provisions of section 144B of the Act. 10) Because, the impugned assessment order

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus, it is submitted as under:- - All the transactions were carried out through various commodity exchanges and through the authorized brokers duly substantiated by the contract notes and also by the payments through proper banking channel. - The appellant has submitted contract note cum bill which include Order No., Trade No. Trade Time, Quantity, purchase Price, Sale price, contract specification, brokerage

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus, it is submitted as under:- - All the transactions were carried out through various commodity exchanges and through the authorized brokers duly substantiated by the contract notes and also by the payments through proper banking channel. - The appellant has submitted contract note cum bill which include Order No., Trade No. Trade Time, Quantity, purchase Price, Sale price, contract specification, brokerage

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

bogus transactions which he has highlighted in his statement and surrendered undisclosed income of Rs.87.85 Lac. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee is beneficiary in these transactions”. 2.4 That during the course of the reassessment proceedings following opportunities were given which are tabulated below:- Type Date Date Response Date Response Remarks Notice/ Notice/ Compliance of the Response (Full/part

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

bogus solely on the basis of information provided by Investigation Wing, Mumbai. Sale proceeds were verifiable independently from the record of the company as well from the stock exchange. The appellant had purchased shares of an existing company and after holding the same for longer time part of it were sold. The burden casted upon the appellant was proved

SEEMA LUNAWAT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed

bogus LTCG/STCL. However, the AO did not specify any\ntransaction related to the alleged scrip, also the Ld. AO could not mention that\nwhether it was purchased or sold, thereby proving that the case was reopened on\nbaseless assumptions.\n(d) The reasons for reopening mention, \"escapement of income of Rs.189,650/-",\nwhereas the AO, in the assessment order, added

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

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

purchased in lieu of cash. Nothing was brought on record to establish that assessee is having any source of income other than the reported sources of income. Also, no material was found to establish that the transaction was a cash transaction merely to convert unaccounted money into accounted money. Ld. AO made an allegation without bringing on record any cogent

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

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

purchased in lieu of cash. Nothing was brought on record to establish that assessee is having any source of income other than the reported sources of income. Also, no material was found to establish that the transaction was a cash transaction merely to convert unaccounted money into accounted money. Ld. AO made an allegation without bringing on record any cogent

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

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

purchased in lieu of cash. Nothing was brought on record to establish that assessee is having any source of income other than the reported sources of income. Also, no material was found to establish that the transaction was a cash transaction merely to convert unaccounted money into accounted money. Ld. AO made an allegation without bringing on record any cogent

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

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

purchased in lieu of cash. Nothing was brought on record to establish that assessee is having any source of income other than the reported sources of income. Also, no material was found to establish that the transaction was a cash transaction merely to convert unaccounted money into accounted money. Ld. AO made an allegation without bringing on record any cogent

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

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

purchased in lieu of cash. Nothing was brought on record to establish that assessee is having any source of income other than the reported sources of income. Also, no material was found to establish that the transaction was a cash transaction merely to convert unaccounted money into accounted money. Ld. AO made an allegation without bringing on record any cogent

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

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

purchased in lieu of cash. Nothing was brought on record to establish that assessee is having any source of income other than the reported sources of income. Also, no material was found to establish that the transaction was a cash transaction merely to convert unaccounted money into accounted money. Ld. AO made an allegation without bringing on record any cogent

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

reassessment- proceedings initiated by AO was invalid, void and bad in law. Interestingly, the assessee pursued exactly same grounds in other three assessment- years, namely AY 1988-89, 1991-92 & 1992-93 and got decided from CIT(A). Therefore, this is a bad attempt of assessee not only to blame

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

reassessment- proceedings initiated by AO was invalid, void and bad in law. Interestingly, the assessee pursued exactly same grounds in other three assessment- years, namely AY 1988-89, 1991-92 & 1992-93 and got decided from CIT(A). Therefore, this is a bad attempt of assessee not only to blame