HAMID HUSAIN,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiito-4(1), Hamid Husain, बनाम/ Bhopal 369, Kaji Camp, Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Hamid Husain, Assessment Unit, बनाम/ 369, Kaji Camp, Income Tax Department Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 139(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961. Further, all parties have collected ‘TCS’ u/s 206C of Income-tax Act, 1961 on scrap purchased by assessee from them. The ‘TCS’ so collected is mentioned in their invoices and deposited to Income-tax Department for which the assessee claimed credit against tax liability also. Hence, all parties are in the mainstream

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

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

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

20 Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 HEAD NOTE - Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable or religious trust - Registration procedure (Cancellation of registration) - Assessee-trust was formed with an object of runnig a hospital and research centre - It was granted registration under section 12A in year 1979 and since then assessee had been claiming benefit

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

20 Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 HEAD NOTE - Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable or religious trust - Registration procedure (Cancellation of registration) - Assessee-trust was formed with an object of runnig a hospital and research centre - It was granted registration under section 12A in year 1979 and since then assessee had been claiming benefit

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

20 times the cost of acquisition of these shares therefore, the AO doubted the genuineness of the transactions. However, once the cost of acquisition is the real amount the assessee has paid for purchase of these shares and the sale price was actual prevailing price at the stock exchange then in the absence of any material or fact to show

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

20 times the cost of acquisition of these shares therefore, the AO doubted the genuineness of the transactions. However, once the cost of acquisition is the real amount the assessee has paid for purchase of these shares and the sale price was actual prevailing price at the stock exchange then in the absence of any material or fact to show

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

20 times the cost of acquisition of these shares therefore, the AO doubted the genuineness of the transactions. However, once the cost of acquisition is the real amount the assessee has paid for purchase of these shares and the sale price was actual prevailing price at the stock exchange then in the absence of any material or fact to show

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

bogus. The Assessing Officer accepted the purchases as genuine but added certain amount on the premise that the assesse's profit from such dealings would have been higher than disclosed. The entire issue was at large before the Appellate Commissioner. It is well known that the Commissioner (Appeals) while hearing the assessee's appeal has powers to even enhance

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

20 per share and sale of these shares @ Rs.488.45 to Rs.492.05 per share which is jump of around 25 times within a short period. Thus, ld. DR has submitted that entire transactions of purchase and sale of shares are as per the scheme of manipulated transactions of these entities by certain insider traders for providing accommodation entries for long term

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

section does not say that for transactions below 2 lakhs any creditable documents of transactions relating to sales below 2 lakh per person must be submitted or maintained. The rise in sales in October & November 2016 was attributable to small purchases mostly below 2 lakh hence no adverse inference can be drawn that no creditable documents of cash sales have

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

20,35,146/- Rs. 27,47,036/- Rs.17,68,463/-Rs.18,02, 780/- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): Share Purchase Documents Pg 15 to 17 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are Share Certificate Pg 18 of PB identical and documents submitted are also same, Share Transfer

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

20,35,146/- Rs. 27,47,036/- Rs.17,68,463/-Rs.18,02, 780/- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): Share Purchase Documents Pg 15 to 17 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are Share Certificate Pg 18 of PB identical and documents submitted are also same, Share Transfer

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

20,35,146/- Rs. 27,47,036/- Rs.17,68,463/-Rs.18,02, 780/- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): Share Purchase Documents Pg 15 to 17 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are Share Certificate Pg 18 of PB identical and documents submitted are also same, Share Transfer

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

20,35,146/- Rs. 27,47,036/- Rs.17,68,463/-Rs.18,02, 780/- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): Share Purchase Documents Pg 15 to 17 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are Share Certificate Pg 18 of PB identical and documents submitted are also same, Share Transfer

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

20,35,146/- Rs. 27,47,036/- Rs.17,68,463/-Rs.18,02, 780/- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): Share Purchase Documents Pg 15 to 17 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are Share Certificate Pg 18 of PB identical and documents submitted are also same, Share Transfer

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

bogus nature of the subject transactions. This, under such circumstances the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) cannot be said as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, needs to be quashed. M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. Without prejudice further, to the above it is submitted that the recourse to section