INCOME TAX OFFICER -4(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. HAMID HUSAIN, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

bogus purchase / not genuine purchase.\n\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee, the\nlearned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition @ 12.50 percent of\nthe purchase of Rs 9,10,39,185.00.\n\n3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of\nappeal

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:

139(5) during the assessment proceedings. The AO further noted that in respect of excess amortization claimed on enhanced project cost ofRs. 1,83,32,038/-, the appellant withdrew the claim of Rs. 6,44,236/- and Rs. 8,51,408/- for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 respectively. The AO also noted in Para 2.3 that the appellant

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

139(1) declaring a total income of Rs. 11,44,12,420/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued from time to time. Ultimately, the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) after making several additions on adhoc basis and determining total income at Rs. 26,79,97,140/-. Aggrieved

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

139(1) declaring a total income of Rs. 11,44,12,420/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued from time to time. Ultimately, the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) after making several additions on adhoc basis and determining total income at Rs. 26,79,97,140/-. Aggrieved

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

139 declaring total incomes of Rs. Nil (with current year loss of Rs.\n89,056/-) and Rs.1,76,500/- respectively for those years. The cases of\nassessee were selected for scrutiny-assessments and statutory notices u/s\n143(2)/142(1) were issued. Finally, the AO completed assessments vide\nassessment-orders dated 29.12.2019 & 20.09.2021 determining total\nincomes as high as Rs.10

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

5. Before the Tribunal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the AO has reopened the assessment on the basis of the information received from Kolkata Investigation Wing in respect of some 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

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

5. Before the Tribunal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the AO has reopened the assessment on the basis of the information received from Kolkata Investigation Wing in respect of some 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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

139 declaring total incomes of Rs. Nil (with current year loss of Rs.\n89,056/-) and Rs.1,76,500/- respectively for those years. The cases of\nassessee were selected for scrutiny-assessments and statutory notices u/s\n143(2)/142(1) were issued. Finally, the AO completed assessments vide\nassessment-orders dated 29.12.2019 & 20.09.2021 determining total\nincomes as high as Rs.10

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

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