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:

section 271(1)(c). (Vinita Dubey) M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -2, Indore 9. From perusal of the above show cause notice we observe that both the charges i.e. considering the particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particular of income have been leveled against the assessee. It is not clear

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

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

271 (J&K) and holding that AO cannot make arbitrary addition and base his conclusion purely on guess work and thereafter, restricting the disallowance to 3 of expenses, when, the AO has clearly held that the assessee was unable to establish the genuineness of such expenses incurred (being expenses of contractual nature) as such expense were undertaken with sister concerns

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

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

271 (J&K) and holding that AO cannot make arbitrary addition and base his conclusion purely on guess work and thereafter, restricting the disallowance to 3 of expenses, when, the AO has clearly held that the assessee was unable to establish the genuineness of such expenses incurred (being expenses of contractual nature) as such expense were undertaken with sister concerns

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

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

271 (J&K) and holding that AO cannot make arbitrary addition and base his conclusion purely on guess work and thereafter, restricting the disallowance to 3 of expenses, when, the AO has clearly held that the assessee was unable to establish the genuineness of such expenses incurred (being expenses of contractual nature) as such expense were undertaken with sister concerns

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

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

271 (J&K) and holding that AO cannot make arbitrary addition and base his conclusion purely on guess work and thereafter, restricting the disallowance to 3 of expenses, when, the AO has clearly held that the assessee was unable to establish the genuineness of such expenses incurred (being expenses of contractual nature) as such expense were undertaken with sister concerns

SHRI SANJAY SOMANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for all

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena, Accountant & Shri O.P.Meena & Shri O.P.Meena, Accountant & Shri O.P.Meenamember Member

bogus bills issued and same was utilized for making payment for corresponding unrecorded purchases. Therefore, considering the nature of business of the assessee, the AO noted that it would be unjustifiable to make addition of the entire purchases, as there may be possibility of availability of cash, which has been received against the sale. As number of the peak credit

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

bogus or incorrect but Ld. AO has disallowed the claim of expenditure on the ground that there was no sale during the year under consideration and in the opinion of the Ld. AO entire expenditure should have been capitalized. The ld. AR has submitted that all the expenses are general in nature and have been incurred for the purpose

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule is ended

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule is ended

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

271 wherein it has been held that suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the shares of M/s Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd. were purchased by the assessee in physical form. In various investigation carried out by the department it was found that the shares

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

271 wherein it has been held that suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the shares of M/s Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd. were purchased by the assessee in physical form. In various investigation carried out by the department it was found that the shares

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

271 wherein it has been held that suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the shares of M/s Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd. were purchased by the assessee in physical form. In various investigation carried out by the department it was found that the shares

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

purchase and stock for the year. All these facts stated in the reasons recorded are taken by the AO from the assessment record itself which manifest that after completing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) the AO has reopened the assessment on the basis of the same facts and records available with him and no new material or facts which were

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

purchase and stock for the year. All these facts stated in the reasons recorded are taken by the AO from the assessment record itself which manifest that after completing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) the AO has reopened the assessment on the basis of the same facts and records available with him and no new material or facts which were

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

purchase and stock for the year. All these facts stated in the reasons recorded are taken by the AO from the assessment record itself which manifest that after completing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) the AO has reopened the assessment on the basis of the same facts and records available with him and no new material or facts which were

SHRI CDR, UDAI SINGH,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.791/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Cdr Udaisingh Bhopal Pan – Aglps – 7299C :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 3(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Bhopal Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 12.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

purchase and sale deed were submitted. The assessee submitted that the assessee has entered into sale agreement and also obtained the power of attorney. The said land was not registered in the name of the assessee and the said property was not transferred to him and, therefore, the assessee was under the impression that the liability of short term capital

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), UJJAIN (STATIONED AT INDORE), UJJAIN vs. M/S. JPJ EXIM (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

section 271(l)(c) of the Act. It was set aside by CIT(Appeals) as also by Tribunal holding that in the absence of any factual finding that the loans taken by the assessee were bogus, no penalty can be imposed. 4.1.6 It has been held by Hon'ble M.P. High Court which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

purchase of those penny stock shares which was not offered in the IDS scheme. Hence there is no error in the addition so made by the A.O. The reliance is placed on Hon'ble Delhi High Court order in the case of PCIT v. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. [(2019) 410 ITR 3 (Del)], wherein it was held that tax authorities