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

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

254 CTR (SC) 228 that Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition. As regards the case laws relied upon by the AO it is submitted that 1. Surjeet Singh

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

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

254 CTR (SC) 228 that Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition. As regards the case laws relied upon by the AO it is submitted that 1. Surjeet Singh

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

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

254 CTR (SC) 228 that Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition. As regards the case laws relied upon by the AO it is submitted that 1. Surjeet Singh

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

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

254 CTR (SC) 228 that Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition. As regards the case laws relied upon by the AO it is submitted that 1. Surjeet Singh

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

254 attaches finality to, the orders of the Tribunal subject to the provisions of section 256 ( or section 260A). Needless to say the orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on all the Revenue authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.” 5.13 The Hon'ble M.P. High Court had also categorically stated that “obviously, the CIT(A) not only

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

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

1 kg, 5 kg and 15\nkg without its conversion into MT before\nAO. (Page No. 40 & 41 of PB)\nKriti Nutrients Ltd.\nITA No. 780/Ind/2024\nA.Y. 2021-22\nPage 59 of 107\nPara 7.5 of the assessment\norder : The AO considered CASS\nParameters which suggest the\nrational and line of Investigation\ni.e. possibility of booking of\nbogus expenses

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

bogus loans by the assessee is evident from one mobile message, the screenshot which has been reproduced by the AO at page no. 24 of his Order. The ld. CIT(DR) also stressed that the names of the lender companies were included in the list of the shell companies notified by the Department. M/sGreat Galleon Ventures

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

bogus loans by the assessee is evident from one mobile message, the screenshot which has been reproduced by the AO at page no. 24 of his Order. The ld. CIT(DR) also stressed that the names of the lender companies were included in the list of the shell companies notified by the Department. M/sGreat Galleon Ventures

RAMA GARG,SEHORE vs. DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rama Garg, Dcit-3(1), Gadhi Chok, Bhopal Chota Bazar, Vs. Nasrullaganj, Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abcpg1140J Assessee By Shri R.K. Mangal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024

purchases however, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of electricity 2 Smt. Rama Garg charges has been confirmed by this Tribunal and consequently the CIT(A) has restricted the penalty to the extent of disallowance of electricity expenses. 5. Before the Tribunal Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the electricity expenses claimed by the assessee

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

254 (Gauhati HC) xiv. DCIT vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, reported in (2018) 32 ITJ 123 (ITAT, Indore) 23. The Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with this issue categorically analysed the observation made by the Ld. AO in the following manner: “4.3.2 The appellant further submitted that the detailed discussion of the financial documents of the lender in the assessment order

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

254 (Gauhati HC) xiv. DCIT vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, reported in (2018) 32 ITJ 123 (ITAT, Indore) 23. The Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with this issue categorically analysed the observation made by the Ld. AO in the following manner: “4.3.2 The appellant further submitted that the detailed discussion of the financial documents of the lender in the assessment order

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

254 (Gauhati HC) xiv. DCIT vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, reported in (2018) 32 ITJ 123 (ITAT, Indore) 23. The Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with this issue categorically analysed the observation made by the Ld. AO in the following manner: “4.3.2 The appellant further submitted that the detailed discussion of the financial documents of the lender in the assessment order

DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

bogus purchase 'needed deep verification', it means the 'AO is reopening for doing a 'fishing or roving inquiry' without proper reason to believe which is not permissible. Court also observed that before closing that this can only lament at the possible revenue loss. The law and the principles noted above are far too wen settled to have escaped the notice