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

section has been quoted/applied by AO in assessment-order, it cannot be a basis to delete the addition/disallowance properly made by AO with cogent analysis. 7. Therefore, in the first instance, we agree with Ld. DR’s submission that the impugned order passed by CIT(A) giving relief to assessee cannot be allowed to survive. 8. However, at the same

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

section 147 is justified and in accordance with the law. Alleged Bogus Purchases: The AO noted that the appellant made a purchase of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- from M/s N.S. Jewellers & Bullion, which was found to be a provider of accommodation Page 10 of 12 S Gandhi Jewellery Private Limited ITA No. 311/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 entries through bogus

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. for Rs. 34,293/- on 17.08.2012; sold the same for Rs. 91,03,492/- on 11.04.2014 and thereby earned a whopping capital gain of Rs. 90,69,199/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the statutory notices

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

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

10% of Rs.3,34,204/-, Disallowance u/s 40A(1)(a) for non deduction of TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses

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

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

10% of Rs.3,34,204/-, Disallowance u/s 40A(1)(a) for non deduction of TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses

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

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

10% of Rs.3,34,204/-, Disallowance u/s 40A(1)(a) for non deduction of TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses

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

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

10% of Rs.3,34,204/-, Disallowance u/s 40A(1)(a) for non deduction of TDS on commission expenditure at Rs.3,12,513/- and disallowance of interest expenses at Rs.3,16,358/-. Income assessed at Rs.29,14,01,880/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging all the additions except for disallowance of commission expenses

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

10. Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) apart from relying on Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 the detailed finding of Ld. CIT(A) as also referred to the following written submissions placed on record: 4.2) In support of grounds of appeal, the appellant has taken plea that CBDT notification no. 52 and 53 dt. 22110/2014 makes it clear that

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

10. Ld. Departmental Representative(DR) apart from relying on Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 the detailed finding of Ld. CIT(A) as also referred to the following written submissions placed on record: 4.2) In support of grounds of appeal, the appellant has taken plea that CBDT notification no. 52 and 53 dt. 22110/2014 makes it clear that

SHRI ABHISHEK GUPTA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 capital gain on transfer of shares, after holding for more than 12 months, is exempted u/s 10(38). The assessee has declared to have earned a whopping capital gain of Rs. 64,58,168/- on the basis of a meagre investment of Rs. 1,77,192/- and the relevant shares

SMT. MANISHA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain from sale of share from Kappac Pharma Ltd and made the addition for Long Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee. Apart from this Ld. Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288 & 410/Ind/2019 A.O has commonly concluded that both the Turbotech Engineering Ltd and Kappac Pharma Ltd are small and penny

SHRI HAKIMUDDIN KHAMBATI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4) RANGE-4, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain from sale of share from Kappac Pharma Ltd and made the addition for Long Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee. Apart from this Ld. Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288 & 410/Ind/2019 A.O has commonly concluded that both the Turbotech Engineering Ltd and Kappac Pharma Ltd are small and penny

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchase and sale of LTCG are not genuine and has taken bogus entry of LTCG. (i) Sumati Dayal a. CIT· (I 995) 2 J.1 JTH 801 (S C); (ii) Durga Prasad More - 82ITR 540 (SC) (iii) Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. - 154 ITR 148 (SC), (iv) Asst. CIT u. Sam Nath Mani . (2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd) (v) Gooinda Rajulu Mudal.iar

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38), hence, addition cannot be made in the hands of assessee without rebutting the documentary evidences and without conducting investigation to discard the said documents. The case laws so relied by assessee are tabulated below: Particulars Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs Prem Pal Gandhi

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38), hence, addition cannot be made in the hands of assessee without rebutting the documentary evidences and without conducting investigation to discard the said documents. The case laws so relied by assessee are tabulated below: Particulars Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs Prem Pal Gandhi

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38), hence, addition cannot be made in the hands of assessee without rebutting the documentary evidences and without conducting investigation to discard the said documents. The case laws so relied by assessee are tabulated below: Particulars Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs Prem Pal Gandhi

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38), hence, addition cannot be made in the hands of assessee without rebutting the documentary evidences and without conducting investigation to discard the said documents. The case laws so relied by assessee are tabulated below: Particulars Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs Prem Pal Gandhi

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38), hence, addition cannot be made in the hands of assessee without rebutting the documentary evidences and without conducting investigation to discard the said documents. The case laws so relied by assessee are tabulated below: Particulars Copy of judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs Prem Pal Gandhi