KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

bogus\nand accordingly, made additions under section 68 to income of\nassessee. The Hon'ble High Court by impugned order held that\nsince assessee had failed to produce any confirmation from said\nalleged creditor or produce its owner in person for cross-\nexamination and also failed to establish identity of creditor and\ngenunineness of alleged loan transaction, impugned additions under

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2,14,89,722/- as evident from the schedule of other income enclosed at page no. 81. 4.25 The AO has also stated that the financial of Mr. Amit Sand proprietor of M's Konica Gems were not filed by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was informed by Mr. Sand that he has already complied with

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2,14,89,722/- as evident from the schedule of other income enclosed at page no. 81. 4.25 The AO has also stated that the financial of Mr. Amit Sand proprietor of M's Konica Gems were not filed by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was informed by Mr. Sand that he has already complied with

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2,14,89,722/- as evident from the schedule of other income enclosed at page no. 81. 4.25 The AO has also stated that the financial of Mr. Amit Sand proprietor of M's Konica Gems were not filed by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was informed by Mr. Sand that he has already complied with

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

2 & 6 assessee has challenged the cancellation of registration u/s 12AA of the Act retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2008 by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act. We observe that the assessee society is registered under M.P. Society Registration Act 1973 and enjoying the benefit of section 12AA of the Act vide order u/s 12AA

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

2 & 6 assessee has challenged the cancellation of registration u/s 12AA of the Act retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2008 by invoking provisions of section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act. We observe that the assessee society is registered under M.P. Society Registration Act 1973 and enjoying the benefit of section 12AA of the Act vide order u/s 12AA

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

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

section 69C was held to be not justified. CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Mag.) (Bom.)(HC) AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 Sale to government department-Alleged bogus purchases- Sales not doubted, merely because suppliers not appeared before the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), purchases cannot be disallowed. DCIT v Shri. Kanakmal Sanghavi

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

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

section 69C was held to be not justified. CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Mag.) (Bom.)(HC) AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 Sale to government department-Alleged bogus purchases- Sales not doubted, merely because suppliers not appeared before the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), purchases cannot be disallowed. DCIT v Shri. Kanakmal Sanghavi

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

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

section 69C was held to be not justified. CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Mag.) (Bom.)(HC) AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 Sale to government department-Alleged bogus purchases- Sales not doubted, merely because suppliers not appeared before the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), purchases cannot be disallowed. DCIT v Shri. Kanakmal Sanghavi

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

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

section 69C was held to be not justified. CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Mag.) (Bom.)(HC) AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 Sale to government department-Alleged bogus purchases- Sales not doubted, merely because suppliers not appeared before the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), purchases cannot be disallowed. DCIT v Shri. Kanakmal Sanghavi

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