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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

31,062 Gems (Prop. Ground Floor, shop Rs.4,78,958/- Mr. Amit No. 03, 32/36, (-) TDS Sand) Benham Hall Lane, 47,896/- Mumbai M/s. 537, Commodity AADCD3215G 4,20,00,000 Interest 4,42,50,957 Dhankuber Exchange Building, Rs.2501063/- Exports Pvt. APMC Market, Sec. (-) TDS Ltd. – 19, Vaashi, Navi 2,50,106/- Mumbai (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

31,062 Gems (Prop. Ground Floor, shop Rs.4,78,958/- Mr. Amit No. 03, 32/36, (-) TDS Sand) Benham Hall Lane, 47,896/- Mumbai M/s. 537, Commodity AADCD3215G 4,20,00,000 Interest 4,42,50,957 Dhankuber Exchange Building, Rs.2501063/- Exports Pvt. APMC Market, Sec. (-) TDS Ltd. – 19, Vaashi, Navi 2,50,106/- Mumbai (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

31,062 Gems (Prop. Ground Floor, shop Rs.4,78,958/- Mr. Amit No. 03, 32/36, (-) TDS Sand) Benham Hall Lane, 47,896/- Mumbai M/s. 537, Commodity AADCD3215G 4,20,00,000 Interest 4,42,50,957 Dhankuber Exchange Building, Rs.2501063/- Exports Pvt. APMC Market, Sec. (-) TDS Ltd. – 19, Vaashi, Navi 2,50,106/- Mumbai (ACIT vs. Sarthak Innovation

MATHARLAL MUNGALAL AGRAWAL,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO, KHANDWA

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

bogus. During first-appellate proceeding, the Ld. CIT(A) has also considered the entire material and agreed with the action of Ld. AO. On a careful consideration, we do not find any reason to upset the findings of lower- authorities. However, we are conscious of several decisions where it has been categorically held that if the purchases are found lacking

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

section has been quoted/applied by AO in assessment-order, it cannot be a basis to delete the addition/disallowance properly made by AO with cogent analysis. 7. Therefore, in the first instance, we agree with Ld. DR’s submission that the impugned order passed by CIT(A) giving relief to assessee cannot be allowed to survive. 8. However, at the same

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

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

bogus. of books. 2 No justification is given as The assessee is supplying books to the to why payments are made students of the Universities managed by to AISECT Bhopal for the societies under same management. supply of books who are These societies, with an object to themselves concentrate their focus on the core activity of providing education have

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

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

bogus. of books. 2 No justification is given as The assessee is supplying books to the to why payments are made students of the Universities managed by to AISECT Bhopal for the societies under same management. supply of books who are These societies, with an object to themselves concentrate their focus on the core activity of providing education have

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

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

bogus. of books. 2 No justification is given as The assessee is supplying books to the to why payments are made students of the Universities managed by to AISECT Bhopal for the societies under same management. supply of books who are These societies, with an object to themselves concentrate their focus on the core activity of providing education have

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

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

bogus. of books. 2 No justification is given as The assessee is supplying books to the to why payments are made students of the Universities managed by to AISECT Bhopal for the societies under same management. supply of books who are These societies, with an object to themselves concentrate their focus on the core activity of providing education have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

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

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

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

2 - Through these ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 60,00,0001- U/S 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and also the initiation of the penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) and also the penalty show cause notice issued uls 274. 5.1.1 It is seen that the appellant filed its return

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

31 ITR 872], the High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Income- tax, Mysore Vs. T. Narayana Pai [98 ITR 422], the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108] and the High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [215 ITR 81] treated loss

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

31,60,087/- assessee failed to furnish the supporting documents as the matter was almost eight years old and certain bills got misplaced. Ld. A.O concluded the reassessment proceedings accepting the genuineness of purchases of Rs.1,62,47,803/- and made disallowance u/s 37 of the Act for 3 Jai PrakashShahani– A.Y 2014-15 unverifiable purchases at Rs.31

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

2(29B). We may also state here that in the assessee's transaction of LTCG, the sale consideration received is Rs.7,82,75,591 pursuant to sale of Listed Scripts of Sunrise between 19.09.2013 - 25.03.2014 and the amount of capital gain as computed by the assessee is Rs.7,51,07,591/- after taking into consideration the cost of purchases

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

31,888/-. The assessee company has received a sum of Rs. 11,77,50,000/- against these shares. Thus, excessive share premium received by the company amounts to Rs.11,49,18,112/- which is liable to be added to the income of the assessee in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income

RITESH BANSAL,KHAJURI BAZAR, INDORE vs. PCIT, INDORE-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, WHITE CHURCH ROAD, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2014-15 Ritesh Bansal, Pr. Cit-1, G-16, Ganesh Complex Indore बनाम/ Khajuri Bazar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Acipb4025C Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Harshit Chowkse, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

bogus LTCG OF Rs. 2,22,82,125/- and also made commission expenses @5% ie. Rs. 11,14,105/-. Hence total of Rs. 2,33,96,230/- is your undisclosed income. You are requested to explain the above transactions. 1. Please furnish the total amount of transactions, category wise i.e. in equity shares, intra day etc. made through the said

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

31,91,369/-, purchase (PP) caps CL(IS) for Rs. 1,51,16,917/- and purchase of label IMFL (IS) for Rs. 9,47,162/-. Against the ledger for Purchase (Bottles), the appellant has only filed three purchase bills of Rs. 8,08,720/-, Rs. 9,93,850/- and Rs. 8,65,961/-, against ledger for purchase of (CC) boxes