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

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

142(1) of the Act. When the assessment proceeding was undergoing survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 9.10.2015 and 10.10.2015. Statement of Managing Director Mr. Santosh Choubey was recorded where he voluntarily offered Rs.23 crores on account of inflated purchase in the books. The copy of the statement was provided to the assessee

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

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

142(1) of the Act. When the assessment proceeding was undergoing survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 9.10.2015 and 10.10.2015. Statement of Managing Director Mr. Santosh Choubey was recorded where he voluntarily offered Rs.23 crores on account of inflated purchase in the books. The copy of the statement was provided to the assessee

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

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

142(1) of the Act. When the assessment proceeding was undergoing survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 9.10.2015 and 10.10.2015. Statement of Managing Director Mr. Santosh Choubey was recorded where he voluntarily offered Rs.23 crores on account of inflated purchase in the books. The copy of the statement was provided to the assessee

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

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

142(1) of the Act. When the assessment proceeding was undergoing survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 9.10.2015 and 10.10.2015. Statement of Managing Director Mr. Santosh Choubey was recorded where he voluntarily offered Rs.23 crores on account of inflated purchase in the books. The copy of the statement was provided to the assessee

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

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of Brevity) before this tribunal as and by way of a second Appeal.The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/5/250/2025- 26/1081526355(1) dated 07-10-2025 passed by the Ld CIT(A) U/S 250 of the Act, which is herein

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

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:

142(1 )/143 (2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 No dated ___________________ *have concealed the particulars of your income or............................_ furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.30 AM on 14.12.2017 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section

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

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

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

142(1) and 143(2) for demolishing the order under section 263. [Para 18.b] Q.Whether inadequate inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer empowers the Commissioner to revise the assessment order? A. It is imperative for the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry to satisfy himself about the genuineness of transactions. Scope of the term 'enquiry' can be diverse in different

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

bogus or not genuine. In support of his contention he has relied upon following decisions: 1.Bengal Peerless Housing Devat. Co. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income (Circle -7) (1), Kolkata (2019) 103 Taxmann 298 (Kolkata Trib) 2.Bharat Earth Movers v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 112 Taxmann 61 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alembic Glass Industries (Tax Appeal

NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

bogus entries of loss/profit. The assesse has not complied with the show cause notice issued by the Pr. CIT. The Pr. CIT has specifically pointed out that prior to the sale of lands resulting long term capital gain of Rs.3,57,33,333/- there was no transaction by the assesse resulting loss which shows that the alleged transactions of derivative

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

142(1), the assessee has denied having carried out any transaction of purchase and sale in the shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited and, therefore, there is no credit entry in the books of accounts of the assessee. He has, thus, submitted that the provisions of section 68 can be invoked only when there is a credit entry

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

142(1), the assessee has denied having carried out any transaction of purchase and sale in the shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited and, therefore, there is no credit entry in the books of accounts of the assessee. He has, thus, submitted that the provisions of section 68 can be invoked only when there is a credit entry

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

142(1) assessee filed reply dated 11.12.2019 giving the details of the amount of sale consideration of agricultural land in question received by the assessee during the span of five years and the investment made by the assessee in purchase of agricultural land as well as residential house during those five years. Thus, the assessee explained that from financial years

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus blasting expenses. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that assessee has claimed blasting expenses of Rs. 13,39,555/- , however, has submitted details of Rs. 1,01,330/- only which has also been reproduced by the AO on page no 3 of the impunged assessment order. The AO further observed that payments were made

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus blasting expenses. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that assessee has claimed blasting expenses of Rs. 13,39,555/- , however, has submitted details of Rs. 1,01,330/- only which has also been reproduced by the AO on page no 3 of the impunged assessment order. The AO further observed that payments were made