ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143 ITD 0025 held that "interest @ 18% in AY 2008-09 on unsecured loans of family cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. c) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Abbas Wazir

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143 ITD 0025 held that "interest @ 18% in AY 2008-09 on unsecured loans of family cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. c) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Abbas Wazir

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

143 ITD 0025 held that "interest @ 18% in AY 2008-09 on unsecured loans of family cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Ltd. c) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Abbas Wazir

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

sections": [ "143(3)", "144B", "143(2)", "142(1)", "270A", "46A", "139(1)", "206C", "133(6)" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of 100% of purchases as bogus

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

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

143(2) and 142(1). In response, the assessee filed submission objecting to the re-opening of assessment as also claiming that the Page 2 of 12 S Gandhi Jewellery Private Limited ITA No. 311/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 impugned purchases was a genuine purchase. However, the AO extracted the Survey Report dated 23.09.2020 forwarded by Investigation Wing on Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. FERRO CONCRETE CON INDIA PVT. LTD., INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Ferro Concrete Con India Income-Tax Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ 3/5/7B, Bhagirathpura Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacf2726K Revenueby Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

143(2)/142(1) and the assessee made compliances. Finally, the AO completed assessment after making an addition of Rs. 84,76,000/- u/s 69 treating the full amount of purchase made by assessee from one M/s Raj Rani Traders (a proprietary concern owned by Mr. Narendra Singh) as bogus. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon

HAMID HUSAIN,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiito-4(1), Hamid Husain, बनाम/ Bhopal 369, Kaji Camp, Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Hamid Husain, Assessment Unit, बनाम/ 369, Kaji Camp, Income Tax Department Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

143(2), 142(1) and show-causes notices but most of the notices remained uncompiled by assessee except that in response to two notices, the assessee filed part-replies. The details of such notices are mentioned by AO in Para 2 of assessment-order. Ultimately, the AO passed following order making a disallowance of Rs. 9,10,39,185/- equivalent

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2) have already elapsed. In other words the references is to those assessments in whose case assessment under section 143 (3) cannot now be done. It is not at all the case of the revenue that in the appeals which have been claimed as unabated here there was time for assessment under section 143(3). In this view

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2) have already elapsed. In other words the references is to those assessments in whose case assessment under section 143 (3) cannot now be done. It is not at all the case of the revenue that in the appeals which have been claimed as unabated here there was time for assessment under section 143(3). In this view

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2) have already elapsed. In other words the references is to those assessments in whose case assessment under section 143 (3) cannot now be done. It is not at all the case of the revenue that in the appeals which have been claimed as unabated here there was time for assessment under section 143(3). In this view

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2) have already elapsed. In other words the references is to those assessments in whose case assessment under section 143 (3) cannot now be done. It is not at all the case of the revenue that in the appeals which have been claimed as unabated here there was time for assessment under section 143(3). In this view

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

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

143(3) rws 147 for AY 2010-11. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee along with other grounds raised the following grounds of appeal – a. Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 3,52,94,416 and [PB 97, ground no. 3] b. Addition on concealment of fees of Rs. 69,70,505 [PB 98, ground no. 7] Ld. CIT(A) accepted

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

143(3) rws 147 for AY 2010-11. Before Ld. CIT(A), assessee along with other grounds raised the following grounds of appeal – a. Disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 3,52,94,416 and [PB 97, ground no. 3] b. Addition on concealment of fees of Rs. 69,70,505 [PB 98, ground no. 7] Ld. CIT(A) accepted

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 28.12.2016 framed by ITO Rajgarh. The Assessee has raised the following revised grounds of appeal in ITANo.853/Ind/2017: “REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in In w, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in adopting the Fair Market

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus donations in their names to channelize its unaccounted money -. ' The assessee in response to the specific show cause in this regard has argued that the, statements have been recorded behind the assessee and no cross enquiry was given to the assessee. Such submissions have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee despite repeated requested failed to furnish

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus donations in their names to channelize its unaccounted money -. ' The assessee in response to the specific show cause in this regard has argued that the, statements have been recorded behind the assessee and no cross enquiry was given to the assessee. Such submissions have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee despite repeated requested failed to furnish