THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -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

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

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

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

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

40,480 Moong PB-5 PB- 58-60 PB-10 Shri Kishore 10 Mukesh S/o Khirkiya 75,750 Soyabean PB-5 PB- 67-70 PB-13 Shri Lakshinarayan 11 Manohar S/o Khirkiya 21,646 Chana PB-5 PB- 43-46 PB-17 Shri Phholchand 12 Ashok S/o Shri Khirkiya 1,01,150 Chana

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

Appeals are dismissed

purchases were made during\nthe year). Thus, the appellant has discharged the onus cast upon it. It was\nopen to the AO to cross verify the invoices from market during Remand stage\nwhich could not be done at assessment stage due to Covid Pandemic. But this\nwas not done. No fault has been reported by the AO in Remand Report

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

Appeals are dismissed

purchases were made during\nthe year). Thus, the appellant has discharged the onus cast upon it. It was\nopen to the AO to cross verify the invoices from market during Remand stage\nwhich could not be done at assessment stage due to Covid Pandemic. But this\nwas not done. No fault has been reported by the AO in Remand Report

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

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

40,000/- was received during the financial year 2010-11 and the balance of Rs.11,48,06,250 has been received during the year under consideration. Notices under section 133(6) dated 11.8.2015 were issued by the ld.AO to all seven companies who had applied for shares. Out of seven companies, six have replied in response to the said notices

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

purchased loss unless it is proved that the amount paid to these brokers has come back to the appellant. The law is well settled that burden to prove that the apparent is not real is on the person who claims so and the same is required Cross Objection Nos.5 & 6/Ind/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16 to be discharged

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

purchased loss unless it is proved that the amount paid to these brokers has come back to the appellant. The law is well settled that burden to prove that the apparent is not real is on the person who claims so and the same is required Cross Objection Nos.5 & 6/Ind/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16 to be discharged

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

bogus claim of long term capital gain made by the various assessees through price rigging in ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 3 – penny stock company. In that connection the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147of the Act. Notice dated 31.03.2016 under Section 148 was issued and the proceeding was carried

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

bogus claim of long term capital gain made by the various assessees through price rigging in ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 3 – penny stock company. In that connection the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147of the Act. Notice dated 31.03.2016 under Section 148 was issued and the proceeding was carried

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

bogus claim of long term capital gain made by the various assessees through price rigging in ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 3 – penny stock company. In that connection the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147of the Act. Notice dated 31.03.2016 under Section 148 was issued and the proceeding was carried