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

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

4) would not ipso facto be regarded as undisclosed income unless and until it is tested as per the definition provided in the Explanation to section 271AAB of the Act……………..The levy of penalty under section 271AAB does not dependent on the addition made during the assessment proceedings but the conditions provided under section 271AAB are precedent for levy

RAJVEER LEAF SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,PALDA. INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT- 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajveer Leaf Springs Dcit/Acit-4(1), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. D-405, Shubh City, Palda, Indore

bogus purchases. Adding the entire amount is consistent with judicial precedents and necessary to neutralize the inflated expenditure reflected in the assessee's books. 5.3.8 Thus the addition of Rs. 4,62,63,870 under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. FERRO CONCRETE CON INDIA PVT. LTD., INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Ferro Concrete Con India Income-Tax Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ 3/5/7B, Bhagirathpura Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacf2726K Revenueby Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

bogus purchase u/s 69. 4. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and carefully perused the case record including the orders of lower authorities. 5. At first, we re-produce the relevant part of impugned order of CIT(A): “6.2. Grounds No. 3 to 7 are against the disallowance of Rs. 84,76,000/- under Section

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

section 147 is justified and in accordance with the law. Alleged Bogus Purchases: The AO noted that the appellant made a purchase of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- from M/s N.S. Jewellers & Bullion, which was found to be a provider of accommodation Page 10 of 12 S Gandhi Jewellery Private Limited ITA No. 311/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 entries through bogus

SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN SACHDEVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos.857 & 858/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Chandra Mohan Assistant Commissioner Sachdeva, Of Income-Tax, E-5/59, Arera Colony, Vs. 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal

4,26,593/- towards bogus purchases deserves to be quashed. B) Supression of Sales of eggs : B-l)A.Y. 2005-06 - Rs. 3,33,333/- Daily sales reports for the period 05-08-2004 to 09-08-2004 were found during survey. The AO observed that :- (a) In the daily production sale sheets sale in the name of Hazi

SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN SACHDEVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos.857 & 858/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Chandra Mohan Assistant Commissioner Sachdeva, Of Income-Tax, E-5/59, Arera Colony, Vs. 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal

4,26,593/- towards bogus purchases deserves to be quashed. B) Supression of Sales of eggs : B-l)A.Y. 2005-06 - Rs. 3,33,333/- Daily sales reports for the period 05-08-2004 to 09-08-2004 were found during survey. The AO observed that :- (a) In the daily production sale sheets sale in the name of Hazi

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

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

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)

4. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee could not furnish any explanation. From the field enquires it is gathered that the assessee has shown purchases from those parties who have not filed their income tax return for A.Y. 2021-22 and are not existing at their addresses, which prove that the assessee has shown bogus purchases

MATHARLAL MUNGALAL AGRAWAL,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO, KHANDWA

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

bogus- purchase just to claim deduction of expenditure. Finally, the Ld. AO rejected the books of account of assessee by invoking section 145(3) and made addition. MatharlalMungalal Agrawal ITANo.20/Ind/2019 – AY 2014-15 Page 4

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

4) of section 132, does not admit the undisclosed income; and (ii) on or before the specified date— (A) declares such income in the return of income furnished for the specified previous year; and (B) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; (c) a sum computed at the rate of sixty per cent

JAI PRAKASH SHAHANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradjai Prakashshahani, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Jai Prakash Impex, Nfac, Delhi Vs. 73, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apqps7948G Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025

bogus purchase made from M/s Garima Enterprises but finally after carrying out the reassessment proceedings has accepted the genuineness of the purchase and has not invoked Section 69C of the Act applicable for unexplained expenditure and has concluded the proceedings only by making minor disallowance u/s 37 of the Act for unverifiable purchase. This subsequent observation

SANGITA LALWANI,ITARSI vs. ITO 1, ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisangita Lalwani, Ito 1, बनाम/ Gali No.03, Sindhi Colony

Bogus Purchases, sundry creditors and the unsecured loans in respect of which additions were made by the “Impugned Assessment Order” that the same were sustained by the “Impugned Order”. (3.3) In so far as issue of Notice u/s 148A(2) was concerned the Assessee did not file any reply there to. (3.4) It was submitted that the Assessee

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

4 M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.60,00,000/- for the alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of bogus claim of purchase expenses of Rs.1,83,32,038/-. 7. We note that during the A.Y. 2013-14 assessee

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

section 69C, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are separately initiated. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act, Page 2 of 7 Prime Construction A.Y. 2018-19 before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned order” has partly allowed, the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds & reasons

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263 of the Act. It was a case in which the Assessing Officer had doubted the genuineness of the purchases shown by the assessee. The assessee contended that the purchases were genuine and in any case if such purchases are not believed to be genuine, the profit from such dealing should be calculated at the rate of 4