THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

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

bogus purchase was before CIT(A) and therefore the assessee brought above position of law to the knowledge of Ld. PCIT but the Ld. PCIT rejected assessee’s submission by observing thus in Para 5 of impugned order: “In view of above mentioned clause (c) of Explanation (1) of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clearly evident that

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

40,500/- have been shown in the original return of income also. 40. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting orders of both the lower authorities. 52 IT(SS)ANos.158 to 175/Ind/2015 && others Chawla Group 41. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through Ground No.6 for Assessment Year 2004- 05 assessee has challenged

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

40,500/- have been shown in the original return of income also. 40. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting orders of both the lower authorities. 52 IT(SS)ANos.158 to 175/Ind/2015 && others Chawla Group 41. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through Ground No.6 for Assessment Year 2004- 05 assessee has challenged

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

40,500/- have been shown in the original return of income also. 40. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting orders of both the lower authorities. 52 IT(SS)ANos.158 to 175/Ind/2015 && others Chawla Group 41. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through Ground No.6 for Assessment Year 2004- 05 assessee has challenged

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

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

purchase. All the sales/purchases are duly linked to the seized material. Thus the entire purchases made by the appellant is already sold and that too on a higher value. It is also noted that the sales made by the appellant has not been doubted by the AO. Thus once the sales is not doubted, it would not be justified

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

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

purchase. All the sales/purchases are duly linked to the seized material. Thus the entire purchases made by the appellant is already sold and that too on a higher value. It is also noted that the sales made by the appellant has not been doubted by the AO. Thus once the sales is not doubted, it would not be justified

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

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

purchase. All the sales/purchases are duly linked to the seized material. Thus the entire purchases made by the appellant is already sold and that too on a higher value. It is also noted that the sales made by the appellant has not been doubted by the AO. Thus once the sales is not doubted, it would not be justified

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

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

purchase. All the sales/purchases are duly linked to the seized material. Thus the entire purchases made by the appellant is already sold and that too on a higher value. It is also noted that the sales made by the appellant has not been doubted by the AO. Thus once the sales is not doubted, it would not be justified

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus blasting expenses. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that assessee has claimed blasting expenses of Rs. 13,39,555/- , however, has submitted details of Rs. 1,01,330/- only which has also been reproduced by the AO on page no 3 of the impunged assessment order. The AO further observed that payments were made

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus blasting expenses. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that assessee has claimed blasting expenses of Rs. 13,39,555/- , however, has submitted details of Rs. 1,01,330/- only which has also been reproduced by the AO on page no 3 of the impunged assessment order. The AO further observed that payments were made

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus blasting expenses. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings found that assessee has claimed blasting expenses of Rs. 13,39,555/- , however, has submitted details of Rs. 1,01,330/- only which has also been reproduced by the AO on page no 3 of the impunged assessment order. The AO further observed that payments were made

THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

bogus bills. Based on this information notice was issued by Ld. AO u/s 148 of the Act. 14. However, records shows that after receiving the information Ld. AO has not made an independent application of mind on the information. Before initiating the reassessment proceedings in motion he was bound to examine the facts related to the purchase from M/s. Motion

THE ACIT CIRCLE,RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

bogus bills. Based on this information notice was issued by Ld. AO u/s 148 of the Act. 14. However, records shows that after receiving the information Ld. AO has not made an independent application of mind on the information. Before initiating the reassessment proceedings in motion he was bound to examine the facts related to the purchase from M/s. Motion

MRS. RAJNI MADAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

section 143 (3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in maintaining the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- paid on account of purchase of house. Smt. Rajani Madan vs. ITO 3(2) Bhopal / I.T.A. No.199/Ind/2014/A.Y.:09-10 Page

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

40/- per ton iron. During the course of post search enquiries, it was found that the assessee had declared purchase of iron and steel from the above parties. It is found that the assessee had shown purchases from the above entry providers for Rs. 3,14,50,484/-. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 147 and income was assessed

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

40,276/-].\n(3) When we analyze the above with TAR [page 73 to 92 of paper book Vol.I] and other papers on record we observe as under:-\n(i) On Page 73 of paper book Vol.I Auditor Report u/s 44AB of the Act para 3(a)(1) states that \"The cash in hand and stock in trade having been

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

section 131 and in course of examination, he stated that all records of purchase and sale of shares were lost and thus, the actual purchase and sale of shares could not be verified. The AO, therefore, treated the 'capital gain' as bogus and disallowed the long-term 'capital gain', sought to be exempted under