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

1 )( c), retrospective cancellation of registration by application of provisions of section 12AA( 4) and on applicability of section 12AA(3). In regard to the above, the appellant has resorted to different grounds which are as under: 5.1) In the instant case allegation of misappropriation of funds made only for one year

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

1 )( c), retrospective cancellation of registration by application of provisions of section 12AA( 4) and on applicability of section 12AA(3). In regard to the above, the appellant has resorted to different grounds which are as under: 5.1) In the instant case allegation of misappropriation of funds made only for one year

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 dismissed the appeal of revenue by observing as under: “3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

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 263(1

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

purchase of land or plant and machinery was not necessarily requirement for the VSPL to undertake trading activities. In any case, this ground is legally not relevant. 8.28 The AO has also noted that the appellant has not undertaken any business activity. The same is found to be factually incorrect. As is noted from a perusal of the Profit

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

bogus by the Ld. AO. Only a general remark in the assessment has been made. The Ld. AO did not reject books of accounts before making such disallowance which is against the various judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that such disallowance is not legally sustainable. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd reported

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

bogus by the Ld. AO. Only a general remark in the assessment has been made. The Ld. AO did not reject books of accounts before making such disallowance which is against the various judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that such disallowance is not legally sustainable. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd reported

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)

35,04,820 private Ltd. 2 Suryapun Thapa Prop. M/s Surya AYYPT3214B 1,48,62,970 Enterprises 3 Mohan Singh Prop. M/s Mohan GBWPS5946E 1,02,45,960 Enterprises 4 Mukesh Kumar Prop. M/s Khushi DYNPK7461M 18,09,280 Enterprises 5 Charan Jeet Singh Prop. M/s Angel IRYPS2001C 5,90,520 Enterprises 6 Pankaj Kapoor Prop. M/s Inder IXNPK9508R 1

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

purchased by you 37. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice dated 16.3.15 giving complete details about the information called for in the show cause notice and the same is extracted below:- With reference to above, and further to our hearing held on 09/03/2015 we are submitting the following pending documents for your kind perusal:- 1. Credit

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

purchased by you 37. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice dated 16.3.15 giving complete details about the information called for in the show cause notice and the same is extracted below:- With reference to above, and further to our hearing held on 09/03/2015 we are submitting the following pending documents for your kind perusal:- 1. Credit

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

purchased by you 37. The assessee duly replied to the above show cause notice dated 16.3.15 giving complete details about the information called for in the show cause notice and the same is extracted below:- With reference to above, and further to our hearing held on 09/03/2015 we are submitting the following pending documents for your kind perusal:- 1. Credit

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

35,13,945/- is claimed to be exempted u/s 10(38) of the I T Act. On perusal and verification of record. it is observed that the assessee submitted copy of transfer form for share transfer as evidence for date or purchase. The shares were purchased in physical form for &.60000/- @ &.5 per share. The date of purchase

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

35,13,945/- is claimed to be exempted u/s 10(38) of the I T Act. On perusal and verification of record. it is observed that the assessee submitted copy of transfer form for share transfer as evidence for date or purchase. The shares were purchased in physical form for &.60000/- @ &.5 per share. The date of purchase

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

35,13,945/- is claimed to be exempted u/s 10(38) of the I T Act. On perusal and verification of record. it is observed that the assessee submitted copy of transfer form for share transfer as evidence for date or purchase. The shares were purchased in physical form for &.60000/- @ &.5 per share. The date of purchase

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

35,13,945/- is claimed to be exempted u/s 10(38) of the I T Act. On perusal and verification of record. it is observed that the assessee submitted copy of transfer form for share transfer as evidence for date or purchase. The shares were purchased in physical form for &.60000/- @ &.5 per share. The date of purchase

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

35,13,945/- is claimed to be exempted u/s 10(38) of the I T Act. On perusal and verification of record. it is observed that the assessee submitted copy of transfer form for share transfer as evidence for date or purchase. The shares were purchased in physical form for &.60000/- @ &.5 per share. The date of purchase

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

35,13,945/- is claimed to be exempted u/s 10(38) of the I T Act. On perusal and verification of record. it is observed that the assessee submitted copy of transfer form for share transfer as evidence for date or purchase. The shares were purchased in physical form for &.60000/- @ &.5 per share. The date of purchase

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