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

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 of Rs. 84,76,000/- u/s 69 treating the full amount of purchase made

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

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P 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

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

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 made from M/s Garima Enterprises but finally after carrying out the reassessment proceedings has accepted the genuineness of the purchase and has not invoked Section 69C of the Act applicable for unexplained expenditure and has concluded the proceedings only by making minor disallowance u/s 37 of the Act for unverifiable purchase. This subsequent observation

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

148 is itself bad in law. The whole process of reopening i.e. reasons, approval and issuance of notice done was mechanical and not done with proper investigation and there was totally non application of mind making addition on wrong facts 2. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by LAO of Rs.48,21,840/- as bogus purchases which

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

section 69C, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are separately initiated. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act, Page 2 of 7 Prime Construction A.Y. 2018-19 before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned order” has partly allowed, the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds & reasons

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 148 of the Act. There was a search u/s 132 of the Act carried out on 30.09.2008 in the case of Shri Bharat Kothari group of cases. During the course of search, a statement u/s 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was recorded from the proprietors of M/s. Nikita Steels, M/s. Bharat Enterprises, M/s. Maa Enterprises

THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

section 80IB of the Act and also disallowed purchase at Rs.51,116/- alleged to be bogus purchase. Income assessed at Rs.1,41,58,310/-. 8. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition for bogus purchase of Rs.51,116/-, allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

THE ACIT CIRCLE,RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

section 80IB of the Act and also disallowed purchase at Rs.51,116/- alleged to be bogus purchase. Income assessed at Rs.1,41,58,310/-. 8. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition for bogus purchase of Rs.51,116/-, allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

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

148 of the Act even when information. was received during the course of search and notice ought to be issued under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing officer erred in calculating the amount of long-term capital gain on transfer of Agricultural

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

148 of the paper book Vol.II reconciliation of purchases quantity/inwards in grams was 17365.820 worth Rs.4,60,24,065/- and upon reconciliation of sales quantity in grams was 17477.862 worth Rs.5,80,22,024/- (Page147 of paper book Vol.II).\n\n4.4 In the “impugned assessment order” an amount of Rs.3,43,59,000/- is added to ROI of Rs.14

SEEMA LUNAWAT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed

148 of the\nAct:\n(a) The appellant had specifically requested the AO to provide:\nA copy of the approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)\nas required under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nA copy of the satisfaction note recorded before issuing notice under Section\n148 of the Act.\n(b) The AO only

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

bogus transaction of purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income on 18.4.2018, declaring the same income as it was declared in the original return of income. The AO completed the assessment u/s 147 read with Section

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

bogus transaction of purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income on 18.4.2018, declaring the same income as it was declared in the original return of income. The AO completed the assessment u/s 147 read with Section

THE ITO 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

148 of the Act dated 31.03.2018. The information so received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit-6(2), Mumbai, is this that the assessee was a beneficiary having trading of Rs.3,60,228/- in the share/scrip of VAS Infrastructure Ltd. which is a penny stock listed company and has made a bogus long term capital gain exemption under Section

SHIVALAYA ENGINEERING WORKS,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO, BHOPAL

In the result we are of the considered opinion

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishivalaya Engineering Works, Ito बनाम/ E-75A, New Industrial Area, Bhopal Vs. Mandideep Huzur, Polaha, B.O. Raisen, (Pan:Acifs4103J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

148 was at Rs. 19,52,800/-. The variation/ addition in respect of interest earned was made at Rs. 3,990 /-. The variation /addition in respect of purchase expenses [claimed u/s 69 c] was made at Rs. 10,63,180/-. That the aforesaid assessment order bears no.- ITBA/ AST/ S / 147 / 2022-23/ 1050833212 (1) & that the same is dated