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

PRIME CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

37,030+Rs.55,00,030/-] That the aforesaid assessment order bears No:- ITBA/AST/S/147/2022- 23/1050178006(1) & that same is dated 31.10.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”. The Ld. AO in para 3.6 has concluded & held has as under:- “3.6. Conclusion drawn. In the absence of requisite details, supporting documents and plausible explanations as discussed above

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the said amount was treated as Shri Sanjay Somani/ I.T.A. No.757&758/Ind/2014/AY:03-04&05-06 & I.T.A. No. 236/Ind/2016/AY04-06 Page 5 of 11 invested in purchases from undisclosed sources. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated in respect of above addition. In reply to penalty show cause notice

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

37 ITR 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

37 ITR 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

37 ITR 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

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

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved whopping addition and the AO considered his additions on sound footing

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

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved whopping addition and the AO considered his additions on sound footing

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

37. The Co-ordinate Bench of Lucknow in the case of Fateh Chand Charitable Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) v. CIT (Exemptions) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 33 (Lucknow - Trib.) Hon’ble Tribunal while dealing with the issue of Cancellation of registration under Section 12AA (iii) of the I.T Act held that: Para "Having carefully examined the order of the Id. Commissioner

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

37. The Co-ordinate Bench of Lucknow in the case of Fateh Chand Charitable Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) v. CIT (Exemptions) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 33 (Lucknow - Trib.) Hon’ble Tribunal while dealing with the issue of Cancellation of registration under Section 12AA (iii) of the I.T Act held that: Para "Having carefully examined the order of the Id. Commissioner

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

section 57(iii) which provides that the deduction of expenditure is allowed only if an expenditure is incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. Thus, in essence, Ld. AO has disallowed deduction for the reason that assessee could not satisfy that the borrowed funds were in fact used for making or earning income. Ld. CIT(A) has, however

POONAMCHAND NARAYANDAS SOONI,KHIRKIYA vs. ITO-2, HARDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradpoonamchand Narayandas Income Tax Officer -2, Sooni, Harda Main Road, H. No.26, Vs. Khirkiya, Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabfp3619H Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R

37-39 PB-16 S/o Bhawarlal 2 Ramdin S/o Khirkiya 1,09,490 Chana PB-5 PB- 33-36 PB-16 Shri Radhakishan 3 Vishnuprasad Khirkiya 95,670 Chana PB-5 PB- 30-32 PB-16 S/o Shri Govardhan 4 Raghunath S/o Khirkiya 27,506 Chana PB-5 PB- 21-23 PB-14 4 Poonamchand Narayandas Sooni Shri Ramlal

PATIDAR BUILER PRIVATE LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed partly

bogus since non-\ngenuine. Further the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the ground in full with\nrespect to advances amounting to Rs.268480/- made by the AO. The\nAppellant prays that the said advances be held as genuine and the addition\nbe directed to be deleted.\nGround No. 1:\n4. In this ground, the assessee challenges the disallowance

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

Appeals are dismissed

37,01,498/- & 12,90,13,010/- respectively after\nmaking certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in first-\nappeal before CIT(A) and succeeded to a large extent. Now, the revenue has\ncome in next appeals before us assailing the relief granted by CIT(A).\n4. Since these appeals relate to the same assessee and certain issues are\nidentical/connected

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

Appeals are dismissed

37,01,498/- & 12,90,13,010/- respectively after\nmaking certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in first-\nappeal before CIT(A) and succeeded to a large extent. Now, the revenue has\ncome in next appeals before us assailing the relief granted by CIT(A).\n4. Since these appeals relate to the same assessee and certain issues are\nidentical/connected