AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

purchase. All the sales/purchases are duly linked to the seized material. Thus the entire purchases made by the appellant is already sold and that too on a higher value. It is also noted that the sales made by the appellant has not been doubted by the AO. Thus once the sales is not doubted, it would not be justified

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

purchase. All the sales/purchases are duly linked to the seized material. Thus the entire purchases made by the appellant is already sold and that too on a higher value. It is also noted that the sales made by the appellant has not been doubted by the AO. Thus once the sales is not doubted, it would not be justified

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

purchase. All the sales/purchases are duly linked to the seized material. Thus the entire purchases made by the appellant is already sold and that too on a higher value. It is also noted that the sales made by the appellant has not been doubted by the AO. Thus once the sales is not doubted, it would not be justified

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

bogus\nand accordingly, made additions under section 68 to income of\nassessee. The Hon'ble High Court by impugned order held that\nsince assessee had failed to produce any confirmation from said\nalleged creditor or produce its owner in person for cross-\nexamination and also failed to establish identity of creditor and\ngenunineness of alleged loan transaction, impugned additions under

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

14. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused material available on record. We find that the assessee owned a house situated at Ward No. 7, Village Kurawar, Narsinghgarh, Rajgarh wherein the plot area was 1,250 Sq Fts and constructed area was 5,000 Sq Fts. The Government compulsorily acquired plot area

MATHARLAL MUNGALAL AGRAWAL,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO, KHANDWA

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

14,00,000/-; Rs. 7,68,000/-; and Rs. 8,31,500/- were cash-withdrawn through self-cheques. Ld. AO has reported abstract of bank account Page No.4 of the assessment-order. These all evidencesand circumstances led theLd. AO to observe that the purchases declared by assessee were fake-purchase and not real. The Ld. AO also recorded statements

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

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

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

14) of the Inco me Tax Act 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld Assessing officer erred in considering the entire sale consideration for calculating the long-term capital gain in one year only more so when the amount was actually received by the appellant in five years. 6. That

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

14 of 51 ITANo.470/Ind/2023 Sadhuram Balani 5.3 Thus, it is clear that the share purchased by the assesse on 10.10.2011 were dematerialized in the de-mat account on 06.02.2013 thereafter the said company M/s Santoshima Tradelink Ltd. and M/s Conart Traders Ltd were merged with M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. as per scheme of merger approved by the Hon’ble Bombay

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

section does not say that for transactions below 2 lakhs any creditable documents of transactions relating to sales below 2 lakh per person must be submitted or maintained. The rise in sales in October & November 2016 was attributable to small purchases mostly below 2 lakh hence no adverse inference can be drawn that no creditable documents of cash sales have

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

14. From perusal of the above order, we find that the jurisdiction of the assessee has been transferred from DCIT(E), Bhopal to ACIT(Central)-2 Bhopal. We also note that the Permanent Account No. of the assessee have been migrated to the ACIT(Central)-2 Bhopal. This order came to force w.e.f. 23.11.2016. Though 29 Shri Jairam Education Society

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

14. From perusal of the above order, we find that the jurisdiction of the assessee has been transferred from DCIT(E), Bhopal to ACIT(Central)-2 Bhopal. We also note that the Permanent Account No. of the assessee have been migrated to the ACIT(Central)-2 Bhopal. This order came to force w.e.f. 23.11.2016. Though 29 Shri Jairam Education Society

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

section 10(38) the only requirement for claiming exemption is that the transaction of sale undertaken and subjected to STT in respect of the shares of a company listed in the recognized stock exchange and holding period is more than 1 year. In the case in hand the AO has not disputed the date of acquisition of the share

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

section 10(38) the only requirement for claiming exemption is that the transaction of sale undertaken and subjected to STT in respect of the shares of a company listed in the recognized stock exchange and holding period is more than 1 year. In the case in hand the AO has not disputed the date of acquisition of the share

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

section 10(38) the only requirement for claiming exemption is that the transaction of sale undertaken and subjected to STT in respect of the shares of a company listed in the recognized stock exchange and holding period is more than 1 year. In the case in hand the AO has not disputed the date of acquisition of the share

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission. He also failed to substantiate any genuine trading activity in grains as claimed by him. 3.1. Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 25.04.2021 declaring

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission. He also failed to substantiate any genuine trading activity in grains as claimed by him. 3.1. Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 25.04.2021 declaring