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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

271(1)9c) are also initiated.” 3. Before the ld.CIT(A), the appellant filed following written submissions: With regard to the Income Tax Appeal in the case of our above named client company for the Assessment Year 2013-14, we have to submit as under:- Ground No. 1 1.1 This ground relate to deemed addition

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

bogus entries (standing to the credit of named dealers who were none existent creditors of the assessee). 14. However, it has now come on record that the appellant/assessee in penalty proceedings offered explanation and caused to produce affidavits and record statements of the concerned unregistered dealers and establish their credentials. That explanation has been accepted by the CIT(A) vide

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