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)

bogus purchase / not genuine purchase. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition @ 12.50 percent of the purchase of Rs 9,10,39,185.00. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before

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

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 transaction of Rs.1,94,07,890/- escaped from levy of tax but Ld. A.O has finally accepted the genuineness of the purchases made from M/s Garima Enterprises to the extent of the copies of invoices furnished by the assessee and only for the amount of purchases of Rs.31,60,087/- for which the assessee failed to furnish

SANGITA LALWANI,ITARSI vs. ITO 1, ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisangita Lalwani, Ito 1, बनाम/ Gali No.03, Sindhi Colony

139(1) of the Act. The total Income as per the return of Income in response to the Notice u/s 148 of the Act was at Rs 7,31,150/-. The Addition on account of Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act was at Rs 48,21,840/- for bogus purchases. Another Addition was towards sundry creditors amounting

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

purchase and sale and LTCG arising from the sale of equity shares of the listed companies are duly recorded in the books of account. Therefore, it is not the case of any income of the specified year representing the entry in the other documents which has not been recorded in the books of account on the date of search. Therefore

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

bogus transaction of capital gain from the purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited. The AO has recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment placed at page no.69 of the paper book without verifying the record available with the AO in the shape of the return of income filed by the assessee u/s 139

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

bogus transaction of capital gain from the purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited. The AO has recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment placed at page no.69 of the paper book without verifying the record available with the AO in the shape of the return of income filed by the assessee u/s 139

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

139 of paper book Vol.II wherein the cash sales of Rs.1,38,000/- was recorded and got tallied. On page 28 of Vol.I of paper book an affidavit of Aarti is placed on record who has deposed that she had purchased gold jewellery worth Rs.1,80,000/- in the month of November, 2016 and that same was correlated with page

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

bogus expenses in\norder to reduce its profit/taxable income. Therefore, the\ngenuineness/correctness of expenses related with these\nentities may be verified.\nBy not making available the details of sales/purchase\nparties and other quantitative details and seeking\nadjournment on one pretext or other, the assessee has\ncleverly dodged the investigation part of the assessment\nproceedings.”\nThe Ld. DR for the revenue

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

bogus nature of the subject transactions. This, under such circumstances the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) cannot be said as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, needs to be quashed. M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. Without prejudice further, to the above it is submitted that the recourse to section

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

Section 139 of the Act. Date of search was 30.11.12. The last date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12 was 30.9.2012, thus it remains undisputed that before the date of search due date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired for Assessment Year

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

Section 139 of the Act. Date of search was 30.11.12. The last date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12 was 30.9.2012, thus it remains undisputed that before the date of search due date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired for Assessment Year

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

Section 139 of the Act. Date of search was 30.11.12. The last date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12 was 30.9.2012, thus it remains undisputed that before the date of search due date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired for Assessment Year

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

Section 139 of the Act. Date of search was 30.11.12. The last date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12 was 30.9.2012, thus it remains undisputed that before the date of search due date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired for Assessment Year

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

purchases of such items. Since Shri N.P. Panjwani has surrendered these items in case of company the action is being taken in case of company. In view of the court decisions which have been adduced above which clearly say that in cash of doubt whether particular income belongs to ‘A’ or ‘B’, the action under section 147 in the hands

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

purchases of such items. Since Shri N.P. Panjwani has surrendered these items in case of company the action is being taken in case of company. In view of the court decisions which have been adduced above which clearly say that in cash of doubt whether particular income belongs to ‘A’ or ‘B’, the action under section 147 in the hands

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

purchases of such items. Since Shri N.P. Panjwani has surrendered these items in case of company the action is being taken in case of company. In view of the court decisions which have been adduced above which clearly say that in cash of doubt whether particular income belongs to ‘A’ or ‘B’, the action under section 147 in the hands

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

purchases of such items. Since Shri N.P. Panjwani has surrendered these items in case of company the action is being taken in case of company. In view of the court decisions which have been adduced above which clearly say that in cash of doubt whether particular income belongs to ‘A’ or ‘B’, the action under section 147 in the hands