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

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)

section 139(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961. Further, all parties have collected ‘TCS’ u/s 206C of Income-tax Act, 1961 on scrap purchased by assessee from them. The ‘TCS’ so collected is mentioned in their invoices and deposited to Income-tax Department for which the assessee claimed credit against tax liability also. Hence, all parties are in the mainstream

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus donations in their names to channelize its unaccounted money -. ' The assessee in response to the specific show cause in this regard has argued that the, statements have been recorded behind the assessee and no cross enquiry was given to the assessee. Such submissions have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee despite repeated requested failed to furnish

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus donations in their names to channelize its unaccounted money -. ' The assessee in response to the specific show cause in this regard has argued that the, statements have been recorded behind the assessee and no cross enquiry was given to the assessee. Such submissions have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee despite repeated requested failed to furnish

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

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

bogus purchases were made. ix. Copy of sales tax orders of the aforesaid entities duly confirming the purchase/sales made by suppliers. x. Copy of sales tax order of the assessee company duly confirming the sale of the assessee. xi. Names of all the suppliers, address of the suppliers, name of the contact persons, their telephone Number along with documentary proof

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

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

bogus purchases were made. ix. Copy of sales tax orders of the aforesaid entities duly confirming the purchase/sales made by suppliers. x. Copy of sales tax order of the assessee company duly confirming the sale of the assessee. xi. Names of all the suppliers, address of the suppliers, name of the contact persons, their telephone Number along with documentary proof

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

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

bogus purchases were made. ix. Copy of sales tax orders of the aforesaid entities duly confirming the purchase/sales made by suppliers. x. Copy of sales tax order of the assessee company duly confirming the sale of the assessee. xi. Names of all the suppliers, address of the suppliers, name of the contact persons, their telephone Number along with documentary proof

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

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

bogus purchases were made. ix. Copy of sales tax orders of the aforesaid entities duly confirming the purchase/sales made by suppliers. x. Copy of sales tax order of the assessee company duly confirming the sale of the assessee. xi. Names of all the suppliers, address of the suppliers, name of the contact persons, their telephone Number along with documentary proof

JAI PRAKASH SHAHANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradjai Prakashshahani, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Jai Prakash Impex, Nfac, Delhi Vs. 73, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apqps7948G Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025

11. In light of above judgment, I further notice that the A.O on one hand is alleging the escapement of income to the tune of Rs.1,94,07,890/- for the alleged bogus purchase made from M/s Garima Enterprises but finally after carrying out the reassessment proceedings has accepted the genuineness of the purchase and has not invoked Section

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:

bogus expenditure on account of purchase of M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 Bitumen and then inflated the project cost and concluded that the appellant had made a wrong claim on account of expenditure incurred against cost of the project under consideration and is in default for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income and levied a penalty

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

11 of 17 rigging of price of this scrip at the stock exchange the transactions cannot be held as bogus. The price prevailing at the stock exchange on the date of sale is beyond the control of the assessee and it might have been manipulated by the alleged brokers or the other interested persons who were in position to manipulate

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

11 of 17 rigging of price of this scrip at the stock exchange the transactions cannot be held as bogus. The price prevailing at the stock exchange on the date of sale is beyond the control of the assessee and it might have been manipulated by the alleged brokers or the other interested persons who were in position to manipulate

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

11 of 17 rigging of price of this scrip at the stock exchange the transactions cannot be held as bogus. The price prevailing at the stock exchange on the date of sale is beyond the control of the assessee and it might have been manipulated by the alleged brokers or the other interested persons who were in position to manipulate

KISHAN RAM VISHNOI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed in terms mentioned\nabove

11 & 10, Ld. AR narrated that\nthe assessee has declared G.P. Rate of 4.8522% and 7.6318% in books of\naccounts of AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. Therefore, when the\nCIT(A) has applied G.P. Rate of 8%, the CIT(A) ought to have granted a\ncredit/relief of 4.8522% and 7.6318% already declared by assessee and\nsustained only differential

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

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 and shifted on the taxing authorities which was not discharged by laying cogent and legal evidence hence treatment of long term gain as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act and confirmation

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

11(c) answer given is list of books of accounts cash, ledger, bank book, journal.\n(iii) On page 93 to 96 of paper book Vol.I the assessee has shown amount wise list of purchases with complete address (Note complete postal address missing) for Assessment Year 2017-18 where grand total is of Rs.4,90,36,805/- and purchases from

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

section.” Thus, the AO has proceeded purely on the assumption that the assessee has availed the accommodation entries of bogus capital gains on account of purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited. This assumption of the AO is not based on the actual facts emerging from the record in the shape of books of accounts

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

section.” Thus, the AO has proceeded purely on the assumption that the assessee has availed the accommodation entries of bogus capital gains on account of purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited. This assumption of the AO is not based on the actual facts emerging from the record in the shape of books of accounts