DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. FERRO CONCRETE CON INDIA PVT. LTD., INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Ferro Concrete Con India Income-Tax Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ 3/5/7B, Bhagirathpura Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacf2726K Revenueby Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

section has been quoted/applied by AO in assessment-order, it cannot be a basis to delete the addition/disallowance properly made by AO with cogent analysis. 7. Therefore, in the first instance, we agree with Ld. DR’s submission that the impugned order passed by CIT(A) giving relief to assessee cannot be allowed to survive. 8. However, at the same

RAJVEER LEAF SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,PALDA. INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT- 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajveer Leaf Springs Dcit/Acit-4(1), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. D-405, Shubh City, Palda, Indore

section 115BBE in taxing the alleged addition made on account of bogus purchase transactions. 4. The appellant craves leave to add any new ground of appeal or alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal”. 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 20.11.2025 when

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

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

bogus. of books. 2 No justification is given as The assessee is supplying books to the to why payments are made students of the Universities managed by to AISECT Bhopal for the societies under same management. supply of books who are These societies, with an object to themselves concentrate their focus on the core activity of providing education have

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

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

bogus. of books. 2 No justification is given as The assessee is supplying books to the to why payments are made students of the Universities managed by to AISECT Bhopal for the societies under same management. supply of books who are These societies, with an object to themselves concentrate their focus on the core activity of providing education have

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

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

bogus. of books. 2 No justification is given as The assessee is supplying books to the to why payments are made students of the Universities managed by to AISECT Bhopal for the societies under same management. supply of books who are These societies, with an object to themselves concentrate their focus on the core activity of providing education have

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

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

bogus. of books. 2 No justification is given as The assessee is supplying books to the to why payments are made students of the Universities managed by to AISECT Bhopal for the societies under same management. supply of books who are These societies, with an object to themselves concentrate their focus on the core activity of providing education have

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 transaction of Rs.1,94,07,890/- escaped from levy of tax but Ld. A.O has finally accepted the genuineness of the purchases made from M/s Garima Enterprises to the extent of the copies of invoices furnished by the assessee and only for the amount of purchases of Rs.31,60,087/- for which the assessee failed to furnish

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

Bogus Purchases, sundry creditors and the unsecured loans in respect of which additions were made by the “Impugned Assessment Order” that the same were sustained by the “Impugned Order”. (3.3) In so far as issue of Notice u/s 148A(2) was concerned the Assessee did not file any reply there to. (3.4) It was submitted that the Assessee

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:

section 271(1)(c). (Vinita Dubey) M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -2, Indore 9. From perusal of the above show cause notice we observe that both the charges i.e. considering the particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particular of income have been leveled against the assessee. It is not clear

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

9 & 11 to 13 of P.B). Said purchases were also treated as inflected because the appellant did not purchase eggs and birds from poultry farmers thereafter in cash as per daily production/sale sheets for subsequent period i.e. from 03-08-2004 to 17-02-2005. The appellate authority confirmed the addition on the ground that no evidence was filed from

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

9 & 11 to 13 of P.B). Said purchases were also treated as inflected because the appellant did not purchase eggs and birds from poultry farmers thereafter in cash as per daily production/sale sheets for subsequent period i.e. from 03-08-2004 to 17-02-2005. The appellate authority confirmed the addition on the ground that no evidence was filed from

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

9 months and the denial of the share broker of the alleged transaction even when the contract note has been issued showing complete details of the shares purchased, settlement number, order number, security name, purchase rate, service tax charged and all the necessary ingredients are mentioned in the contract note for the purchase of equity shares of well known company

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

9 months and the denial of the share broker of the alleged transaction even when the contract note has been issued showing complete details of the shares purchased, settlement number, order number, security name, purchase rate, service tax charged and all the necessary ingredients are mentioned in the contract note for the purchase of equity shares of well known company

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

9 months and the denial of the share broker of the alleged transaction even when the contract note has been issued showing complete details of the shares purchased, settlement number, order number, security name, purchase rate, service tax charged and all the necessary ingredients are mentioned in the contract note for the purchase of equity shares of well known company

SARITA BAGDI ,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD-4(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

9. There is no dispute at the end of the assessee about the correctness of the fact that registration certificate of Eden Financial Services is cancelled but it was submitted that the assessee was not aware of this fact at the time of purchase and a contract note was issue in lieu of purchase and payment has been made through

THE ACIT, CIRCLE, RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

section 80IB of the Act and also disallowed purchase at Rs.51,116/- alleged to be bogus purchase. Income assessed at Rs.1,41,58,310/-. 8. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition for bogus purchase of Rs.51,116/-, allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

THE ACIT CIRCLE,RATLAM vs. M/S. MAHALAXMI INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., RATLAM

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Miss Madhumita Roy

section 80IB of the Act and also disallowed purchase at Rs.51,116/- alleged to be bogus purchase. Income assessed at Rs.1,41,58,310/-. 8. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition for bogus purchase of Rs.51,116/-, allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

section 250(2)(b) of the Act and in response to his notice, the AO failed to submit any report. Further, in absence of any specific request from the AO, the CIT(A) presumed that the AO did not want to attend the hearings. Thus, when the case involved whopping addition and the AO considered his additions on sound footing