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

MATHARLAL MUNGALAL AGRAWAL,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO, KHANDWA

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

2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of assessee. However,the Ld. DR representing the revenue was ready to argue the case and submitted that it can be decided on the basis of material held on record and after hearing him. Accordingly, the hearing was proceeded. 3. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee-firm

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. BABYLISS CURLS & CURVES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed by upholding the order of CIT(A), wherein part relief was granted to the assessee

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2011-12

2), have not been regularly followed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144. Thus, it is clear that if the AO has any doubt about any expenditure claimed by the appellant, the provisions of section 145 should be applied and profit should be determined at reasonable figure. The appellant

THE ACIT, 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI RAJENDRA SARAF, BARNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed by upholding the order of CIT(A), wherein part relief was granted to the assessee

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2011-12

2), have not been regularly followed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144. Thus, it is clear that if the AO has any doubt about any expenditure claimed by the appellant, the provisions of section 145 should be applied and profit should be determined at reasonable figure. The appellant

SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN SACHDEVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos.857 & 858/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Chandra Mohan Assistant Commissioner Sachdeva, Of Income-Tax, E-5/59, Arera Colony, Vs. 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal

2 53214 93713 4086 August 04 Purchases of birds worth Rs. 3,07,800/- and of eggs at Rs. -: 11 :- Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal. 4,53,720/- in cash were considered as bogus or inflated because daily sheets were not available for the period from 0l.04.2004 to 02.08.2004 and purchase bills of the suppliers were not produced though supported

SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN SACHDEVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos.857 & 858/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Chandra Mohan Assistant Commissioner Sachdeva, Of Income-Tax, E-5/59, Arera Colony, Vs. 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal

2 53214 93713 4086 August 04 Purchases of birds worth Rs. 3,07,800/- and of eggs at Rs. -: 11 :- Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal. 4,53,720/- in cash were considered as bogus or inflated because daily sheets were not available for the period from 0l.04.2004 to 02.08.2004 and purchase bills of the suppliers were not produced though supported

DCIT 5(1) , BHOPAL vs. VANISHA MINERALS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit-5(1) Vanisha Minerals Pvt. Bhopal Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaecv 9083 B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2022

section 145(3) of the Act for the reasons mentioned in Para 4 above. The ld. A.O relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble high court of M.P in case of Badri Prasad Bhagwan das & Co.(supra) estimated Sales at 2.5 times of the License fees and net Profit at 5% on the estimated sales. No specific item has been

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

bogus loans by the assessee is evident from one mobile message, the screenshot which has been reproduced by the AO at page no. 24 of his Order. The ld. CIT(DR) also stressed that the names of the lender companies were included in the list of the shell companies notified by the Department. M/sGreat Galleon Ventures

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

bogus loans by the assessee is evident from one mobile message, the screenshot which has been reproduced by the AO at page no. 24 of his Order. The ld. CIT(DR) also stressed that the names of the lender companies were included in the list of the shell companies notified by the Department. M/sGreat Galleon Ventures

PIYUSH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), INDORE , ITO, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 199C of the Finance Act, 2016 disclosing income of Rs.\n5,00,000/- under Prime Minister Garib Kalyan Yojna Rules 2016. He paid tax of Rs.\n2,49,500/- on 29-03-2017 and deposited Rs.1,25,000/- with UCO Bank as per the scheme.\nThus, addition to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of SBN notes

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the said amount was treated as Shri Sanjay Somani/ I.T.A. No.757&758/Ind/2014/AY:03-04&05-06 & I.T.A. No. 236/Ind/2016/AY04-06 Page 5 of 11 invested in purchases from undisclosed sources. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated in respect of above addition. In reply to penalty show cause notice

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

2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee

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

2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee

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

2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

purchases and other expenses of M/s Anand Organics (Prop. Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla) were paid by Shri Prem Chawla from his proprietaryship concern M/s Anand Industries to the following persons:- Name of supplier to Amount (Rs.) whom payment was made IT(SS)ANos.158 to 175/Ind/2015 && others Chawla Group Jindal Polyster Limited 7,35,064 Reliance Industries Ltd 2

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

purchases and other expenses of M/s Anand Organics (Prop. Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla) were paid by Shri Prem Chawla from his proprietaryship concern M/s Anand Industries to the following persons:- Name of supplier to Amount (Rs.) whom payment was made IT(SS)ANos.158 to 175/Ind/2015 && others Chawla Group Jindal Polyster Limited 7,35,064 Reliance Industries Ltd 2

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

purchases and other expenses of M/s Anand Organics (Prop. Late Smt. Sudesh Chawla) were paid by Shri Prem Chawla from his proprietaryship concern M/s Anand Industries to the following persons:- Name of supplier to Amount (Rs.) whom payment was made IT(SS)ANos.158 to 175/Ind/2015 && others Chawla Group Jindal Polyster Limited 7,35,064 Reliance Industries Ltd 2

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

bogus by the Ld. AO. Only a general remark in the assessment has been made. The Ld. AO did not reject books of accounts before making such disallowance which is against the various judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that such disallowance is not legally sustainable. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd reported