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

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

purchase. All the sales/purchases are duly linked to the seized material. Thus the entire purchases made by the appellant is already sold and that too on a higher value. It is also noted that the sales made by the appellant has not been doubted by the AO. Thus once the sales is not doubted, it would not be justified

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

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

purchase. All the sales/purchases are duly linked to the seized material. Thus the entire purchases made by the appellant is already sold and that too on a higher value. It is also noted that the sales made by the appellant has not been doubted by the AO. Thus once the sales is not doubted, it would not be justified

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

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

purchase. All the sales/purchases are duly linked to the seized material. Thus the entire purchases made by the appellant is already sold and that too on a higher value. It is also noted that the sales made by the appellant has not been doubted by the AO. Thus once the sales is not doubted, it would not be justified

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

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

purchase. All the sales/purchases are duly linked to the seized material. Thus the entire purchases made by the appellant is already sold and that too on a higher value. It is also noted that the sales made by the appellant has not been doubted by the AO. Thus once the sales is not doubted, it would not be justified

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

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the said amount was treated as Shri Sanjay Somani/ I.T.A. No.757&758/Ind/2014/AY:03-04&05-06 & I.T.A. No. 236/Ind/2016/AY04-06 Page 5 of 11 invested in purchases from undisclosed sources. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated in respect of above addition. In reply to penalty show cause notice

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

100 it will be Rs.7,86,06,750x100 785 Rs. 1,00,13,598/- Fair market value of the asset as on 01.04.1981 by calculating on this method will be Rs. 1,00,13,598/- Page 12 of 21 Bhawani Shankar Page 13 of 21 Indexed cost of acquisition of the said asset would be Rs.1,00,13,598 785/100

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

section 56 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules 2014 and under the Companies Act, a share transfer form can be filed on a plain paper and should bear the stamps of requisite value. Thus, I find that, the securities transfer form was complete

SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI,INDORE vs. ITO3(3), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16 Surendra Kumar Tripathi Indore Pan:Aarpt4096N : Appellant V/S Ito 3(3) Indore : Respondent Appellant By Shri R.K. Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07.09.2021 O R D E R

section 143(3) of the Act. The appellant prays that the said demand to be deleted. 2. Without prejudice the above, on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,45,000/- on account of disallowance U/S 41(1) OF THE Act as cessation of trading liability. While property

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

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

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

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

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

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

bogus or not genuine. In support of his contention he has relied upon following decisions: 1.Bengal Peerless Housing Devat. Co. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income (Circle -7) (1), Kolkata (2019) 103 Taxmann 298 (Kolkata Trib) 2.Bharat Earth Movers v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 112 Taxmann 61 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alembic Glass Industries (Tax Appeal

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

bogus and disallowable. - CIT vs. Nangalia Fabrics P.Ltd., (2014) 220 Taxman 17 (Mag) (Guj) - Rajesh P. Soni v. ACIT, (2006) 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.)(Trib) - CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises (P)Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Bom) - G. G. Disamond International v. Dy. CIT, 104 TTJ 809 (Mum)(Trib) - ITO v. Surana Traders, (2005) 92 ITD 212 (Mum)(Trib.) - Balaji

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

100/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in adopting the plot sale value of Aakriti High land at Rs. 43,40,81,000/- of booking value in place of registered value of Rs. 1,33,27,660/-. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

100/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in adopting the plot sale value of Aakriti High land at Rs. 43,40,81,000/- of booking value in place of registered value of Rs. 1,33,27,660/-. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

HITESH KUMAR BINDAL,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

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

bogus capital gain as alleged. 7. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue made following contentions and claimed that the revenue has rightly treated the capital gain declared by as non- genuine: (i) It is submitted that the AO found that the DDIT(Investigation), in his report, established that KCLIPL is a “penny stock” that exists for providing accommodation entries

HITESH KUMAR BINDAL,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

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

bogus capital gain as alleged. 7. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue made following contentions and claimed that the revenue has rightly treated the capital gain declared by as non- genuine: (i) It is submitted that the AO found that the DDIT(Investigation), in his report, established that KCLIPL is a “penny stock” that exists for providing accommodation entries