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.

56(2)(vii)(b) but. has discussed the section in detail We have raised ground no. 1 to keep this matter alive. If any adjudication is to be given on this issue, We may be given some time to give separate submission on this issue. Ground No.2 2.1 This ground relates to addition of Rs. 17750000/- by alleging that credit

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

56,032/- made u/s 37 of the Act. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, provisions of section 37 are not attracted at all in this case. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal

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

56,284/-.No return of Income was filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The total Income as per the return of Income in response to the Notice u/s 148 of the Act was at Rs 7,31,150/-. The Addition on account of Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act was at Rs 48,21,840/- for bogus purchases

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

56,000 eggs for Rs. 4,53,720/- are treated as inflated or bogus, it was impossible to effect sale of eggs disclosed in the books by the appellant and his wife during the period 01-04-2004 to 03- 08-2004. The appellant purchased birds and eggs, and debited its cost in the books of accounts hence source

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

56,000 eggs for Rs. 4,53,720/- are treated as inflated or bogus, it was impossible to effect sale of eggs disclosed in the books by the appellant and his wife during the period 01-04-2004 to 03- 08-2004. The appellant purchased birds and eggs, and debited its cost in the books of accounts hence source

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

56(2)(viib) Exp. (a)(i) as option given in the Act and the same has been accepted by the A.O. 4. The appellant further craves to leave to add, alter/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary 6. Before going through the facts and issues raised in the instant appeal which are commonly

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

56(2)(viib) Exp. (a)(i) as option given in the Act and the same has been accepted by the A.O. 4. The appellant further craves to leave to add, alter/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary 6. Before going through the facts and issues raised in the instant appeal which are commonly

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

56(2)(viib) Exp. (a)(i) as option given in the Act and the same has been accepted by the A.O. 4. The appellant further craves to leave to add, alter/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary 6. Before going through the facts and issues raised in the instant appeal which are commonly

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

56(2)(viib) Exp. (a)(i) as option given in the Act and the same has been accepted by the A.O. 4. The appellant further craves to leave to add, alter/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary 6. Before going through the facts and issues raised in the instant appeal which are commonly

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

56(2)(viib) Exp. (a)(i) as option given in the Act and the same has been accepted by the A.O. 4. The appellant further craves to leave to add, alter/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary 6. Before going through the facts and issues raised in the instant appeal which are commonly

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

56(2)(viib) Exp. (a)(i) as option given in the Act and the same has been accepted by the A.O. 4. The appellant further craves to leave to add, alter/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary 6. Before going through the facts and issues raised in the instant appeal which are commonly

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 56 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules 2014 and under the Companies Act, a share transfer form can be filed on a plain paper and should bear the stamps of requisite value. Thus, I find that, the securities transfer form was complete

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

bogus purchase or sham or make believe arrangement in light of material produced by the assessee on pages 50 to 53, pages 54 to 58,94 of Paper Book Vol.I and Page 36 of stock register etc. These documents were not examined by the Ld. A.O and no finding on purchases made from these two entities are given

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

56. 3. Before the Tribunal Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the assesse purchased 30,000/- equity shares of M/s Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd. for consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- on 29.09.2011. The payment was duly reflected in the bank account statement of the assesse vide entry dated 17.09.2011 placed at page no.85 & 86 of the paper book

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

56 (Calcutta) 2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies

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

56 (Calcutta) 2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies

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

56 (Calcutta) 2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

bogus\nand accordingly, made additions under section 68 to income of\nassessee. The Hon'ble High Court by impugned order held that\nsince assessee had failed to produce any confirmation from said\nalleged creditor or produce its owner in person for cross-\nexamination and also failed to establish identity of creditor and\ngenunineness of alleged loan transaction, impugned additions under