THE ACIT CIRCLE,RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

section 80IB of the Act and also disallowed purchase at Rs.51,116/- alleged to be bogus purchase. Income assessed at Rs.1

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

bogus purchase made by the assessee from M/s Garima Enterprises, he has to take note of Income Tax Return filed by the assessee and also the assessment records of the proceedings carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act. Now for reopening the case u/s 8 Jai PrakashShahani– A.Y 2014-15 147 of the Act where the assessee has already

POONAMCHAND NARAYANDAS SOONI,KHIRKIYA vs. ITO-2, HARDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradpoonamchand Narayandas Income Tax Officer -2, Sooni, Harda Main Road, H. No.26, Vs. Khirkiya, Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabfp3619H Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R

116/-. 3.1 Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and so far as the issue of unexplained sundry creditors of Rs.17,92,976/- he confirmed the action of the Ld. A.O. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 3 Poonamchand Narayandas Sooni 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from referring to the paper book containing

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

purchases and other expenses of M/s Anand Organics (Prop. Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla) were paid by Shri Prem Chawla from his proprietaryship concern M/s Anand Industries to the following persons:- Name of supplier to Amount (Rs.) whom payment was made IT(SS)ANos.158 to 175/Ind/2015 && others Chawla Group Jindal Polyster Limited 7,35,064 Reliance Industries

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

purchases and other expenses of M/s Anand Organics (Prop. Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla) were paid by Shri Prem Chawla from his proprietaryship concern M/s Anand Industries to the following persons:- Name of supplier to Amount (Rs.) whom payment was made IT(SS)ANos.158 to 175/Ind/2015 && others Chawla Group Jindal Polyster Limited 7,35,064 Reliance Industries

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

purchases and other expenses of M/s Anand Organics (Prop. Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla) were paid by Shri Prem Chawla from his proprietaryship concern M/s Anand Industries to the following persons:- Name of supplier to Amount (Rs.) whom payment was made IT(SS)ANos.158 to 175/Ind/2015 && others Chawla Group Jindal Polyster Limited 7,35,064 Reliance Industries

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

116] For the addition made on account of concealment of fees of Rs. 69,70,505, Ld. CIT(A) restricted this addition to Rs. 8,47,694 and relief of Rs. 61,22,811 was granted. Department is not in appeal against this relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). [PB 117] 12. Ld. Pr. CIT(Central), Bhopal erred

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

116] For the addition made on account of concealment of fees of Rs. 69,70,505, Ld. CIT(A) restricted this addition to Rs. 8,47,694 and relief of Rs. 61,22,811 was granted. Department is not in appeal against this relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). [PB 117] 12. Ld. Pr. CIT(Central), Bhopal erred

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

bogus\nand accordingly, made additions under section 68 to income of\nassessee. The Hon'ble High Court by impugned order held that\nsince assessee had failed to produce any confirmation from said\nalleged creditor or produce its owner in person for cross-\nexamination and also failed to establish identity of creditor and\ngenunineness of alleged loan transaction, impugned additions under

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

bogus loans by the assessee is evident from one mobile message, the screenshot which has been reproduced by the AO at page no. 24 of his Order. The ld. CIT(DR) also stressed that the names of the lender companies were included in the list of the shell companies notified by the Department. M/sGreat Galleon Ventures

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

bogus loans by the assessee is evident from one mobile message, the screenshot which has been reproduced by the AO at page no. 24 of his Order. The ld. CIT(DR) also stressed that the names of the lender companies were included in the list of the shell companies notified by the Department. M/sGreat Galleon Ventures

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

116 to buttress the argument that the assessing officer had made due enquiry in this case, it is not the case where no enquiry was made. Further, he reiterated the synopsis as filed by the Ld. counsel for the assessee. 6. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed these submissions and supported the order

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

bogus profits and losses to the parties who wants to buy loss, against the deposit of amounts taken cash and cheques in their accounts. The assessee has not taken delivery of shares it means that he has in connivance with M/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd., had purchased a huge loss to reduce M/s. Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

116 to 138 of Paper-Book). h) Audited financial statements and Income-tax returns of “A” and “J” for AY 2012-13 under consideration (Page No. 139 to 171 / 295 to 327 of Paper-Book). The Balance-Sheets of “A” and “J” as on 31.03.2012 show shareholders’ funds to the tune

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

purchaser were with the Ld.A.O and these persons appeared before the Ld.A.O there was no estoppels on his part to make necessary verification as well as investigation if any required from Shri Shriram Choudhary. In the given facts and circumstances there is no iota of evidence which could prove that investment of Rs.17,50,000/- in the property

SMT ANJANA SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

purchaser were with the Ld.A.O and these persons appeared before the Ld.A.O there was no estoppels on his part to make necessary verification as well as investigation if any required from Shri Shriram Choudhary. In the given facts and circumstances there is no iota of evidence which could prove that investment of Rs.17,50,000/- in the property

SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

purchaser were with the Ld.A.O and these persons appeared before the Ld.A.O there was no estoppels on his part to make necessary verification as well as investigation if any required from Shri Shriram Choudhary. In the given facts and circumstances there is no iota of evidence which could prove that investment of Rs.17,50,000/- in the property

SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

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

purchaser were with the Ld.A.O and these persons appeared before the Ld.A.O there was no estoppels on his part to make necessary verification as well as investigation if any required from Shri Shriram Choudhary. In the given facts and circumstances there is no iota of evidence which could prove that investment of Rs.17,50,000/- in the property