ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

section 69C was held to be not justified. CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Mag.) (Bom.)(HC) AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 Sale to government department-Alleged bogus purchases

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

section 69C was held to be not justified. CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Mag.) (Bom.)(HC) AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 Sale to government department-Alleged bogus purchases

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

section 69C was held to be not justified. CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Mag.) (Bom.)(HC) AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 Sale to government department-Alleged bogus purchases

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

bogus purchase made from M/s Garima Enterprises but finally after carrying out the reassessment proceedings has accepted the genuineness of the purchase and has not invoked Section 69C

PRIME CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

section 69C, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are separately initiated. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act, Page 2 of 7 Prime Construction A.Y. 2018-19 before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned order” has partly allowed, the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds & reasons

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

purchases are Rs. 445.96 Lacs. He has also shown interest income of Rs. 10.91 Lacs on loans and advances and a net profit of Rs. 6.45 Lacs. Sundry debtors are shown Rs. 207.51 Lacs and loans given are Rs. 224.15 Lacs. I find that the financial of M/s Konica Gems have also been discussed by the AO in the assessment

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

purchases are Rs. 445.96 Lacs. He has also shown interest income of Rs. 10.91 Lacs on loans and advances and a net profit of Rs. 6.45 Lacs. Sundry debtors are shown Rs. 207.51 Lacs and loans given are Rs. 224.15 Lacs. I find that the financial of M/s Konica Gems have also been discussed by the AO in the assessment

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

purchases are Rs. 445.96 Lacs. He has also shown interest income of Rs. 10.91 Lacs on loans and advances and a net profit of Rs. 6.45 Lacs. Sundry debtors are shown Rs. 207.51 Lacs and loans given are Rs. 224.15 Lacs. I find that the financial of M/s Konica Gems have also been discussed by the AO in the assessment

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

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

purchases have been made in cash, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of Rs.24,866/- under section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter

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

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

purchases have been made in cash, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of Rs.24,866/- under section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter

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

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

purchases have been made in cash, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of Rs.24,866/- under section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter

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

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

purchases have been made in cash, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of Rs.24,866/- under section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter

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

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

purchases have been made in cash, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of Rs.24,866/- under section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter

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

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

purchases have been made in cash, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 9. The learned CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of Rs.24,866/- under section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

bogus expenditure on account of purchase of M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 Bitumen and then inflated the project cost and concluded that the appellant had made a wrong claim on account of expenditure incurred against cost of the project under consideration and is in default for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income and levied a penalty

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

bogus solely on the basis of information provided by Investigation Wing, Mumbai. Sale proceeds were verifiable independently from the record of the company as well from the stock exchange. The appellant had purchased shares of an existing company and after holding the same for longer time part of it were sold. The burden casted upon the appellant was proved

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 LTCG, Penny stock companies available with this office the name of Vishvjyoti Trading Ltd. appears in the list. Therefore, the credentials of this company are doubtful and complete investigation is required to be made in respect of transactions of the assessee with this company also. In this connection, I have also issue a letter to Pr. DIT (Inv.), Mumbai

PRATAP BAJAJ,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 13. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify of any grounds before final date of hearing. Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, Following grounds of appeal in ITANo.489/Ind/2019 (Shri Pratap Bajaj):- 1. That