RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

bogus expenditure as a power and fuel expenses are all supported by undisputed facts and record of consumption of power. Even otherwise if the income from mixing work is considered as income from other sources the expenditure incurred on power and fuel for doing mixing work is allowable claim u/s 57 of the Act or at least the claim

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

bogus expenditure as a power and fuel expenses are all supported by undisputed facts and record of consumption of power. Even otherwise if the income from mixing work is considered as income from other sources the expenditure incurred on power and fuel for doing mixing work is allowable claim u/s 57 of the Act or at least the claim

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2,14,89,722/- as evident from the schedule of other income enclosed at page no. 81. 4.25 The AO has also stated that the financial of Mr. Amit Sand proprietor of M's Konica Gems were not filed by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was informed by Mr. Sand that he has already complied with

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2,14,89,722/- as evident from the schedule of other income enclosed at page no. 81. 4.25 The AO has also stated that the financial of Mr. Amit Sand proprietor of M's Konica Gems were not filed by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was informed by Mr. Sand that he has already complied with

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2,14,89,722/- as evident from the schedule of other income enclosed at page no. 81. 4.25 The AO has also stated that the financial of Mr. Amit Sand proprietor of M's Konica Gems were not filed by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was informed by Mr. Sand that he has already complied with

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

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

24 hours in the office of the assessee. There was no stock required to be counted. The assessee was not being allowed any access to his computer system and was informed by the survey team that the suppliers of the assessee are not traceable at the address appearing in their invoices and the purchases are bogus. The assessee

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

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

24 hours in the office of the assessee. There was no stock required to be counted. The assessee was not being allowed any access to his computer system and was informed by the survey team that the suppliers of the assessee are not traceable at the address appearing in their invoices and the purchases are bogus. The assessee

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

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

24 hours in the office of the assessee. There was no stock required to be counted. The assessee was not being allowed any access to his computer system and was informed by the survey team that the suppliers of the assessee are not traceable at the address appearing in their invoices and the purchases are bogus. The assessee

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

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

24 hours in the office of the assessee. There was no stock required to be counted. The assessee was not being allowed any access to his computer system and was informed by the survey team that the suppliers of the assessee are not traceable at the address appearing in their invoices and the purchases are bogus. The assessee

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

x. 203 ITR 108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) y. Mukesh Sharma v. CIT 25 ITJ 341 (Indore ITAT) 22. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by Ld. PCIT and further submitted that assessee was required to furnish complete details of the persons named in the hundis

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

x. 203 ITR 108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) y. Mukesh Sharma v. CIT 25 ITJ 341 (Indore ITAT) 22. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by Ld. PCIT and further submitted that assessee was required to furnish complete details of the persons named in the hundis

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

x. 203 ITR 108 CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (Bombay H.C.) y. Mukesh Sharma v. CIT 25 ITJ 341 (Indore ITAT) 22. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by Ld. PCIT and further submitted that assessee was required to furnish complete details of the persons named in the hundis

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

24,440/-. The assesse also claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act at Rs.24,39,177/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain from sale of equity shares of M/s. Goenka business & Finance Ltd. The case was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently for carrying 4 Smt. Nilima Kothari out the reassessment proceedings the notice

SMT. SARLA JAIN,KHANDWA vs. ITO WARD 1 KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sarla Jain, Ito, C/O Nakoda Marketing, Ward-1, बनाम/ Bhavani Mata Road, Khandwa Khandwa Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpj1316J Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

purchase LTCG Scrips cost (excluding charges) KAPPAC 1000 13.05.2014 564.02 5,64,024 12,019/- Pharma 8,46,732 KAPPAC 250 20.05.2014 602.27 1,50,698 3,005/- Pharma KAPPAC 450 09.06.2014 338.76 1,52,442 5,408/- Pharma Page 2 of 24 Smt.Sarla Jain, Khadwa,vs.ITO,Ward 1, Khanndwa A. Y. : 2015-16 5. Now, the assessee has raised

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

x) Thus whoever has benefited from transaction in these shares have transacted in accordance with the scheme and has admittedly converted his unaccounted cash equal to the sale proceeds of share in to white in the guise of exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. xi) With so much of evidence against the assessee, the onus

SHRI OM PRAKASH PHATANDAS PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

24 hours. If the payment is not done within the specified time the shares are auctioned i.e. Shares are sold by auction and the difference between the contracted purchase price and the auctioned sale price is debited to the client’s (purchaser) account. Under no circumstances the payment can be delayed beyond 48 hours. The appellant claims that he asked

SHRI ABHISHEK GUPTA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

24 to 26 of the assessment-order. (x) Ld. AR has filed copies of several decisions in favour of assessee in the Paper-Book but during the course of hearing, the Ld. AR referred to and relied upon the following decisions: (a) ITAT Indore in Govind Hari Narayan Agarwal HUF, ITA No. 60/Ind/2019, order dated 28.06.2021 (b) ITAT Kolkata

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

bogus or unreliable. Therefore, in the given circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee is covered by the exceptions in the proviso below sub- section (3A) to section 40A(3) and no disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be made in the hands of the assessee.” 17. We therefore respectfully following the judgment in the case of Gurdas Garg