THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

bogus. The AO is not justified in making the addition without rejecting the books of account of the appellant. The AO has not rejected the books of account and not pointed out any specific defect. The appellant's books of account are audited u/s 44AB of the IT Act. All the expenses are duly recorded and entered

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, MEGHNAGAR DIST. JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

bogus. The AO is not justified in making the addition without rejecting the books of account of the appellant. The AO has not rejected the books of account and not pointed out any specific defect. The appellant's books of account are audited u/s 44AB of the IT Act. All the expenses are duly recorded and entered

SHYAM SUNDER VERMA ,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -2, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

194C and 194J as per section 26AS are more than the receipts shown in ITR I.T.A No. 993/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 3 Shri Shyam Sunder Verma vs. Pr. CIT (c) Tax credit claimed in ITR is less than tax credits available in 26AS (d) Mismatch in sales turnover reported in audited report and ITR 4. During the course

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

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