MATHARLAL MUNGALAL AGRAWAL,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO, KHANDWA

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

69,490/- which was subjected to scrutiny proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Act and the Ld. AO completed assessment after making an addition of Rs.31,49,684/- on account of bogus purchases. Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal but could not succeed. Now, the assessee has come in this appeal before us assailing the orders of lower authorities

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

SEEMA LUNAWAT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed

bogus LTCG/STCL. However, the AO did not specify any\ntransaction related to the alleged scrip, also the Ld. AO could not mention that\nwhether it was purchased or sold, thereby proving that the case was reopened on\nbaseless assumptions.\n(d) The reasons for reopening mention, \"escapement of income of Rs.189,650/-",\nwhereas the AO, in the assessment order, added

KISHAN RAM VISHNOI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed in terms mentioned\nabove

69,820/ appearing in the Audited Profit & Loss A/c. Hon'ble CIT-\nAppeals could not appreciate the fact that after allowance of above\nrebates Appellant's Income will become negative. To this extent,\nimpugned Appellate Order is erroneous and unlawful and deserves to\nbe quashed.\n05. That the appellant craves leave to raise additional grounds and/or\nmake amendment

SHIVALAYA ENGINEERING WORKS,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO, BHOPAL

In the result we are of the considered opinion

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishivalaya Engineering Works, Ito बनाम/ E-75A, New Industrial Area, Bhopal Vs. Mandideep Huzur, Polaha, B.O. Raisen, (Pan:Acifs4103J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearingNumber:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077285189(1) dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred

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

bogus transaction of capital gain from the purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited. The AO has recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment placed at page no.69 of the paper book without verifying the record available with the AO in the shape of the return of income filed by the assessee

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

bogus transaction of capital gain from the purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited. The AO has recorded the reasons for reopening of the assessment placed at page no.69 of the paper book without verifying the record available with the AO in the shape of the return of income filed by the assessee

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

69,21,273 (Assessment Year 2016-17)}.\n5. The assessee in order to justify the quantitative sales has shown purchases made during the year. But on verification it was found that the major purchases was made on 27th October 2016 of Rs.38,13,862/- from Preeti Jain and on 28th October 2016 of Rs.42,22,530/- from Rakesh Agrawal

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

section 10(38) the only requirement for claiming exemption is that the transaction of sale undertaken and subjected to STT in respect of the shares of a company listed in the recognized stock exchange and holding period is more than 1 year. In the case in hand the AO has not disputed the date of acquisition of the share

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

section 10(38) the only requirement for claiming exemption is that the transaction of sale undertaken and subjected to STT in respect of the shares of a company listed in the recognized stock exchange and holding period is more than 1 year. In the case in hand the AO has not disputed the date of acquisition of the share

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

section 10(38) the only requirement for claiming exemption is that the transaction of sale undertaken and subjected to STT in respect of the shares of a company listed in the recognized stock exchange and holding period is more than 1 year. In the case in hand the AO has not disputed the date of acquisition of the share

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

69,70,505, Ld. CIT(A) restricted this addition to Rs. 8,47,694 and relief of Rs. 61,22,811 was granted. Department is not in appeal against this relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). [PB 117] 12. Ld. Pr. CIT(Central), Bhopal erred in not considering the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to allege that

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

69,70,505, Ld. CIT(A) restricted this addition to Rs. 8,47,694 and relief of Rs. 61,22,811 was granted. Department is not in appeal against this relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). [PB 117] 12. Ld. Pr. CIT(Central), Bhopal erred in not considering the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to allege that

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

purchased off line and the registration of company i.e. No. INB 230660520 was cancelled by SEBI. (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of amount of Rs. 35,50,000/- paid by World Class Services. Without considering the fact that entry

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