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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

section 68 does not permit any addition qua the opening balances which are carried forward from earlier year and not accepted during the year. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly taken into account the decision of (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Farms (301 ITR 384), (ii) Shri Vardhman Overseas Page 17 of 37