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

RAJVEER LEAF SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,PALDA. INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT- 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajveer Leaf Springs Dcit/Acit-4(1), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. D-405, Shubh City, Palda, Indore

144B of the Act, the assessee’s total income exigible to tax was computedand assessed at Rs.4,65,54,174/-.The income as per the return of income filed was at Rs.2,90,304/-. The addition on account of bogus purchase u/s 69C was at Rs.4,62,63,870/-. Some of the observations of the Ld. A.O is reproduced

KUNAL VYAS,INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), IND, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus resulting in unexplained investment entries, particularly when income returned has been accepted by AO. 9) Because, the impugned assessment order is without jurisdiction being non est in law on account of non-observance of the mandatory statutory procedure laid down under the provisions of section 144B of the Act. 10) Because, the impugned assessment order

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)

144B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment-year [“AY”] 2021-22, the revenue and assessee both sides have filed the captioned cross-appeals. 2. The background facts leading to these cross-appeals are as under: (i) The assessee-individual is engaged in the business of iron scarp. For AY 2021-22, the assessee filed return declaring

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

144B of the Act were carried out and during the course of proceedings Ld. A.O noticed that the total sum of Rs.1,94,07,890/- received by M/s Garima Enterprises from M/s Jaiprakash Impex. Ld. A.O observed that the assessee has purchased goods from M/s Garima Enterprises and when the details of the purchases were asked the assessee was able

PRIME CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

144B of the Act the total income of the assessee was computed & assessed at Rs.5,45,37,062/-. Income as per return of income was of Rs.4,90,37,030/-. Addition of Rs.55,00,032/- was made. [Rs.4,90,37,030+Rs.55,00,030/-] That the aforesaid assessment order bears No:- ITBA/AST/S/147/2022- 23/1050178006(1) & that same is dated 31.10.2022 which

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

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

144B of the Act with due application of mind on the issue reply filed by the assessee and supporting evidences therefore, the Pr. CIT was not justified in passing the impugned order holding order of the AO as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue for want of proper inquiry. Ld. AR has contended that there must

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

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 144B of the Act was passed on 19.12.2022.\nSUBMISSIONS\n01) We humbly submit that regular books of accounts are maintained by the appellant company\nand besides manufacturing activity, it is also engaged in trading and sale of refined oil\nand total turnover including other income was Rs. 685.75 crores during the year. Purchases\nare being effected from registered dealers

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

bogus solely on the basis of information provided by Investigation Wing, Mumbai. Sale proceeds were verifiable independently from the record of the company as well from the stock exchange. The appellant had purchased shares of an existing company and after holding the same for longer time part of it were sold. The burden casted upon the appellant was proved

JAYA GARG,INDORE vs. ACIT NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Jaya Garg, Acit-Nfac, C-4/5, Shivkripa Colony, New Delhi बनाम/ Sajan Nagar Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtpg 4247 L Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah Ca, Shri Soumya Bumb Ca, Ms. Ayushi Garg Ca & Ms. Anshika Goyal Ca - Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 5.04.2024

section 144B the of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal. Page 1 of 18 Jaya Garg, Indore ITA No. 418/Ind/2023 – AY 2014-15 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed original return of income

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

Appeals are dismissed

bogus sundry creditors while the\nissue required proper verification.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the\naddition of Rs.4,05,38,902/- ignoring the fact that the adverse finding of AO\nsubmitted in Remand report where it is specifically concluded that an amount\nof Rs.2,85,64,210/- (Rs.1

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

144B of the Act the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs.1,83,77,290/-. The assessee’s Return of Income as per ITR filed u/s 148 was Rs.93,04,130/-. An Addition of Rs.87,20,000/- was made on account of (1) unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act (2) on account of undisclosed income of Rs.3

RITESH BANSAL,KHAJURI BAZAR, INDORE vs. PCIT, INDORE-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, WHITE CHURCH ROAD, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2014-15 Ritesh Bansal, Pr. Cit-1, G-16, Ganesh Complex Indore बनाम/ Khajuri Bazar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Acipb4025C Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Harshit Chowkse, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

144B of the Act for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds raised in Appeal-Memo (Form No. 36). Page 1 of 31 Ritesh Bansal ITA No. 436/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee filed original return of income of relevant