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

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

134 ITD 27 (Indore) (Trib.) b. The error envisaged by Section 263 is not one that depends on possibility or guess work, but it should actually be an error either of fact or of law. ACIT v. Technip Italy Spa 150 Taxman 13 (Delhi) Trib.), Pratap Footwear v. ACIT SOT 638 (Jabalpur) (Trib.). c. CIT v. Gabriel India

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

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

DCIT 5(1) , BHOPAL vs. VANISHA MINERALS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit-5(1) Vanisha Minerals Pvt. Bhopal Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaecv 9083 B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2022

bogus. The expense Vouchers along with copy of ledger were also examined by the ld. AO. The ld. AO has mentioned that without bills sales cannot be verified and which makes the books Page 2 of 12 Vanisha Minerals P. Ltd. Assessment Year 2016-17 of account incomplete and unreliable. The ld. AO has further mentioned that the sales

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus blasting expenses. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that assessee has claimed blasting expenses of Rs. 13,39,555/- , however, has submitted details of Rs. 1,01,330/- only which has also been reproduced by the AO on page no 3 of the impunged assessment order. The AO further observed that payments were made

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus blasting expenses. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that assessee has claimed blasting expenses of Rs. 13,39,555/- , however, has submitted details of Rs. 1,01,330/- only which has also been reproduced by the AO on page no 3 of the impunged assessment order. The AO further observed that payments were made

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus blasting expenses. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that assessee has claimed blasting expenses of Rs. 13,39,555/- , however, has submitted details of Rs. 1,01,330/- only which has also been reproduced by the AO on page no 3 of the impunged assessment order. The AO further observed that payments were made

AVIRAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

purchase and sale of equity shares of M/s Sulabh Engineers & Services Ltd. and further alleged that the assessee is engaged in providing accommodation entries in the forum of bogus capital gain/capital loss. Thereafter Ld. AO examined the unsecured loans which were taken during the year for the purpose of trading in equity shares. Aviral Industries The Appellant was required

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

134 ITD 393). 2. Merely because from a perfectionist point of view, it is felt that some more enquiries and verifications could have been made by the Assessing Officer while making assessment/assessment order cannot be declared to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (Salora Cloth v. ACIT [2006J 991TD 300 (Chennai) (Trib.) 10. In the light

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

134 ITD 393). 2. Merely because from a perfectionist point of view, it is felt that some more enquiries and verifications could have been made by the Assessing Officer while making assessment/assessment order cannot be declared to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (Salora Cloth v. ACIT [2006J 991TD 300 (Chennai) (Trib.) 10. In the light

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

134 ITD 393). 2. Merely because from a perfectionist point of view, it is felt that some more enquiries and verifications could have been made by the Assessing Officer while making assessment/assessment order cannot be declared to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (Salora Cloth v. ACIT [2006J 991TD 300 (Chennai) (Trib.) 10. In the light