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

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

section 147 is justified and in accordance with the law. Alleged Bogus Purchases: The AO noted that the appellant made

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

147 through a notice dated 29.03.2023 u/s 148. In response to notice, the assessee re-filed return of income repeating the original income of Rs. 12,20,48,700/-. Thereafter, the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) and the assessee made compliances. Finally, the AO completed assessment after making an addition

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

bogus purchases. Adding the entire amount is consistent with judicial precedents and necessary to neutralize the inflated expenditure reflected in the assessee's books. 5.3.8 Thus the addition of Rs. 4,62,63,870 under Section 69C is fully justified. These grounds of appeal, therefore, lack merit and are dismissed”. 2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order

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

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

147 of the Act on the ground that appellant was indulged in manipulating the share price without any corroborative evidences against her is wholly unjustified, improper and bad in law. 04) Section 68: Issue: long term capital gain That the CIT(A) erred in law in not considering the genuineness of long term capital gam earned by the appellant claimed

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

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

bogus, i.e. no purchases are made then how can there be any sale of that material. Undue importance is given about the TIN number of the registration under the Gumasta Act. No cognizance has been taken that all the transactions have been undertaken through the banking channel. Even the bank accounts of the seller show that purchases and sales have

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

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

bogus, i.e. no purchases are made then how can there be any sale of that material. Undue importance is given about the TIN number of the registration under the Gumasta Act. No cognizance has been taken that all the transactions have been undertaken through the banking channel. Even the bank accounts of the seller show that purchases and sales have

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

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

bogus, i.e. no purchases are made then how can there be any sale of that material. Undue importance is given about the TIN number of the registration under the Gumasta Act. No cognizance has been taken that all the transactions have been undertaken through the banking channel. Even the bank accounts of the seller show that purchases and sales have

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

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

bogus, i.e. no purchases are made then how can there be any sale of that material. Undue importance is given about the TIN number of the registration under the Gumasta Act. No cognizance has been taken that all the transactions have been undertaken through the banking channel. Even the bank accounts of the seller show that purchases and sales have

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

purchases of such items. Since Shri N.P. Panjwani has surrendered these items in case of company the action is being taken in case of company. In view of the court decisions which have been adduced above which clearly say that in cash of doubt whether particular income belongs to ‘A’ or ‘B’, the action under section 147 in the hands

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

purchases of such items. Since Shri N.P. Panjwani has surrendered these items in case of company the action is being taken in case of company. In view of the court decisions which have been adduced above which clearly say that in cash of doubt whether particular income belongs to ‘A’ or ‘B’, the action under section 147 in the hands

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

purchases of such items. Since Shri N.P. Panjwani has surrendered these items in case of company the action is being taken in case of company. In view of the court decisions which have been adduced above which clearly say that in cash of doubt whether particular income belongs to ‘A’ or ‘B’, the action under section 147 in the hands

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

purchases of such items. Since Shri N.P. Panjwani has surrendered these items in case of company the action is being taken in case of company. In view of the court decisions which have been adduced above which clearly say that in cash of doubt whether particular income belongs to ‘A’ or ‘B’, the action under section 147 in the hands

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

purchases of such items. Since Shri N.P. Panjwani has surrendered these items in case of company the action is being taken in case of company. In view of the court decisions which have been adduced above which clearly say that in cash of doubt whether particular income belongs to ‘A’ or ‘B’, the action under section 147 in the hands

DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

bogus purchase 'needed deep verification', it means the 'AO is reopening for doing a 'fishing or roving inquiry' without proper reason to believe which is not permissible. Court also observed that before closing that this can only lament at the possible revenue loss. The law and the principles noted above are far too wen settled to have escaped the notice

THE ITO 4(4), INDORE vs. SHRI YOGENDRA SINGH THAKUR, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2012-13 Ito 4(4), Shri Yogendra Singh Thakur, Indore Village Birgoda, Tehsil Depalpur, बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Admpt3091K Revenue By Shri K. G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2018

Section 147. Though the ITA T granted relief, it did not record any reasons for it. In these circumstances, the order was rectified and the reasons recorded on 05.01.2017. It is submitted that in all cases, especially for A Y 2003-04; the materials relied upon, i.e. the information with respect to the alleged bogus transaction was one. Learned counsel

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