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

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

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

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

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

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

SHRI CDR, UDAI SINGH,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.791/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Cdr Udaisingh Bhopal Pan – Aglps – 7299C :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 3(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Bhopal Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 12.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

purchase and sale deed were submitted. The assessee submitted that the assessee has entered into sale agreement and also obtained the power of attorney. The said land was not registered in the name of the assessee and the said property was not transferred to him and, therefore, the assessee was under the impression that the liability of short term capital

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

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