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

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

139(1) declaring total income of Rs. 1,29,054/- may be treated as filed in response to said notice under section 148 of the Act. There was a search u/s 132 of the Act carried out on 30.09.2008 in the case of Shri Bharat Kothari group of cases. During the course of search, a statement

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

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

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

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 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

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

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

139(1) of the Act. During the year under consideration the appellant sold a residential house for a sum of Rs. 18750000 and in turn has invested a sum of Rs. 13985500 for purchasing new residential house and paid the entire amount through Banking Chanel. As such had claimed exemption from payment of capital gain