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.

purchase of share had been proved-by assessee - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, appellate authorities had rightly deleted impugned addition made by Assessing Officer - Held, yes [para6] [In favour of assessee] ix) Honorable Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. Kansal Fincap Ltd. Reported in 221 Taxman 151 Section 68: Cash credits -Share application money - No addition shall

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

purchasing shares of assessee. This finding noted by AO himself in assessment-order clearly shows that “A” and “J” have admitted not only the investment made in assessee but also the source utilized by them for making investment. Thirdly, the assessee has adduced sufficient evidences as enumerated in foregoing para to show that all three ingredients of section 68

PIYUSH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(4), INDORE , ITO, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

purchase or bogus sales which are brought on record by the Assessing Officer\nand as such, he says that in the instant case, there is no ground for rejection of the\nbooks of account and as such the applicability of section 145(3) of the Act by the AO\nis legally not valid and the book results should be accepted

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the IT Act in view of the fact that the both the assessee company as well as the creditors failed to submit evidences in support of their claims that the payments made were in lieu of sale purchase transactions, and also failed to show the sale purchase nature of the transaction? Ground

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

68 of the IT Act in view of the fact that the both the assessee company as well as the creditors failed to submit evidences in support of their claims that the payments made were in lieu of sale purchase transactions, and also failed to show the sale purchase nature of the transaction? Ground

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 long term capital gain nor taken benefit of section

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 long term capital gain nor taken benefit of section

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 long term capital gain nor taken benefit of section

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 long term capital gain nor taken benefit of section

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 long term capital gain nor taken benefit of section

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 long term capital gain nor taken benefit of section

KUNAL VYAS,INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), IND, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus resulting in unexplained investment entries, particularly when income returned has been accepted by AO. 9) Because, the impugned assessment order is without jurisdiction being non est in law on account of non-observance of the mandatory statutory procedure laid down under the provisions of section 144B of the Act. 10) Because, the impugned assessment order

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

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

RECONNECT ENERGY SOLUTION P LT,BENGALURU vs. THE DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoreconnect Energy Solution Ltd. Dcit 1(4) No.22, Vk Kalyani, 7Th Floor Indore Vs. Sankey Road, Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafcr 0074 H Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2023

bogus premium but a genuine premium charged in the facts and circumstances. Ld. AR has submitted that the AO has not taken into consideration the tangible assets, goowill, know-how, copy right and other such things for determining the fairness of valuation. The AO has accepted the premium received by the assessee for the shares issued during the assessment year

MATHARLAL MUNGALAL AGRAWAL,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO, KHANDWA

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

68,000/-; and Rs. 8,31,500/- were cash-withdrawn through self-cheques. Ld. AO has reported abstract of bank account Page No.4 of the assessment-order. These all evidencesand circumstances led theLd. AO to observe that the purchases declared by assessee were fake-purchase and not real. The Ld. AO also recorded statements of Shri Akash Agrawal (partner

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

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and accordingly Rs. 2,09,239/- is being added to the assessee’s total income under this section.” Thus, the AO has proceeded purely on the assumption that the assessee has availed the accommodation entries of bogus capital gains on account of purchase