BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission. He also failed to substantiate any genuine trading activity in grains as claimed by him. 3.1. Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 25.04.2021 declaring

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission. He also failed to substantiate any genuine trading activity in grains as claimed by him. 3.1. Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 25.04.2021 declaring

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus purchase bills to various beneficiaries, which were later withdrawn in cash after charging commission. He also failed to substantiate any genuine trading activity in grains as claimed by him. 3.1. Based on this information, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. In response, the assessee filed a return of income on 25.04.2021 declaring

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

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

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

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

bogus loans by the assessee is evident from one mobile message, the screenshot which has been reproduced by the AO at page no. 24 of his Order. The ld. CIT(DR) also stressed that the names of the lender companies were included in the list of the shell companies notified by the Department. M/sGreat Galleon Ventures

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

bogus loans by the assessee is evident from one mobile message, the screenshot which has been reproduced by the AO at page no. 24 of his Order. The ld. CIT(DR) also stressed that the names of the lender companies were included in the list of the shell companies notified by the Department. M/sGreat Galleon Ventures

SMT. INDIRA BOHRA,,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 69A of the Act on account of so called shares transaction. The appellant has sold through Arihant Capital Markets Ltd. in BSE and transferred the shares to the purchaser from his Demat Account and the payment has also been obtained by means of A/c payee cheque only. It is true that the appellant has purchased and sold the shares

YOGENDRA CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

section. The addition of Rs.3,15,000/- made being illegal and wrong. The same may very kindly be deleted. 4 That the learned CIT(A) erred in maintaining addition of rs.3,15,000/- made by the AO u/s 69A inspite of the fact that no books of account were maintained by the assessee. The addition of Rs.3