HAMID HUSAIN,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiito-4(1), Hamid Husain, बनाम/ Bhopal 369, Kaji Camp, Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Hamid Husain, Assessment Unit, बनाम/ 369, Kaji Camp, Income Tax Department Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

90,520 Enterprises 6 Pankaj Kapoor Prop. M/s Inder IXNPK9508R 1,00,25,635 Enterprises TOTAL 9,10,39,185 3.1 The Verification Unit after making physical verification reported that the above mentioned entities do not exists at the given addresses or have left the premises. Out of the above six person, only notice u/s 133(6) could be served

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

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

90,297/- 3. Disallowance of Registration Expenses Rs. 89,96,634/- 4. Disallowance of purchase Rs.3,04,29,100/- 5. Disallowance of training expenses Rs.8,14,42,700/- Rs.12,20,19,196/- Aggrieved Assessee preferred appeal before Ld. Cit(A) and partly succeeded. 9. Now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the finding

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

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

90,297/- 3. Disallowance of Registration Expenses Rs. 89,96,634/- 4. Disallowance of purchase Rs.3,04,29,100/- 5. Disallowance of training expenses Rs.8,14,42,700/- Rs.12,20,19,196/- Aggrieved Assessee preferred appeal before Ld. Cit(A) and partly succeeded. 9. Now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the finding

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

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

90,297/- 3. Disallowance of Registration Expenses Rs. 89,96,634/- 4. Disallowance of purchase Rs.3,04,29,100/- 5. Disallowance of training expenses Rs.8,14,42,700/- Rs.12,20,19,196/- Aggrieved Assessee preferred appeal before Ld. Cit(A) and partly succeeded. 9. Now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the finding

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

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

90,297/- 3. Disallowance of Registration Expenses Rs. 89,96,634/- 4. Disallowance of purchase Rs.3,04,29,100/- 5. Disallowance of training expenses Rs.8,14,42,700/- Rs.12,20,19,196/- Aggrieved Assessee preferred appeal before Ld. Cit(A) and partly succeeded. 9. Now both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the finding

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

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

90,37,030+Rs.55,00,030/-] That the aforesaid assessment order bears No:- ITBA/AST/S/147/2022- 23/1050178006(1) & that same is dated 31.10.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”. The Ld. AO in para 3.6 has concluded & held has as under:- “3.6. Conclusion drawn. In the absence of requisite details, supporting documents and plausible explanations as discussed above

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

90,36,805/- and purchases from Preeti Jain & Rakesh Agrawal (HUF) are reflected on page 94 to paper book Vol.I of Rs.38,13,862/- [27.10.2016] & Rs.42,22,530/- [28.10.2016]. In Grand total these purchases of old gold is included.\n(iv) We observe that on page 46 of paper book Vol.I an e-mail of Ld. AR of the assessee

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

90,34,341/- determined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order even when the said amount of capital gain was duly examined by the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment proceedings. 4. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him. ” 10. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s

POONAMCHAND NARAYANDAS SOONI,KHIRKIYA vs. ITO-2, HARDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradpoonamchand Narayandas Income Tax Officer -2, Sooni, Harda Main Road, H. No.26, Vs. Khirkiya, Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabfp3619H Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R

90,149 Moong PB-5 PB-7 r 19 Bhur Kudawa 79,674 Moong PB-5 PB-8 20 Narayan 1,04,200 Moong PB-5 PB-11 21 Sadasukh 2,00,000 Moong PB-5 PB-6 22 Bhim Singh 79,572 Moong PB-5 PB-9 17,42,976 2. Assessee purchased soyabean from the above farmers

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

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

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

90,146\nWithdraw\n-als from\nbank\n90,000\nDeposits\nin bank\n1,00,000\nExplanation for withdrawals and\ndeposits in bank\nCash was withdrawn from bank at\nIndore for making purchases. The\nassessee purchased goods as under:-\nOn 13-05-2016\n18,221/-\nOn 15-05-2016 16,950/-\nOn 16-05-2016\n12,819/-\n27-05-\n2016

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus donations in their names to channelize its unaccounted money -. ' The assessee in response to the specific show cause in this regard has argued that the, statements have been recorded behind the assessee and no cross enquiry was given to the assessee. Such submissions have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee despite repeated requested failed to furnish

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus donations in their names to channelize its unaccounted money -. ' The assessee in response to the specific show cause in this regard has argued that the, statements have been recorded behind the assessee and no cross enquiry was given to the assessee. Such submissions have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee despite repeated requested failed to furnish

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

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

90,415/- comes to NIL and as such, capital gain is chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. In view of these facts in the light of the judicial pronouncements (supra), we are of the view that the findings of ld. CIT(A) deserve to be set aside and accordingly, we delete the addition of Rs.88

RITESH BANSAL,KHAJURI BAZAR, INDORE vs. PCIT, INDORE-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, WHITE CHURCH ROAD, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2014-15 Ritesh Bansal, Pr. Cit-1, G-16, Ganesh Complex Indore बनाम/ Khajuri Bazar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Acipb4025C Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Harshit Chowkse, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

bogus LTCG OF Rs. 2,22,82,125/- and also made commission expenses @5% ie. Rs. 11,14,105/-. Hence total of Rs. 2,33,96,230/- is your undisclosed income. You are requested to explain the above transactions. 1. Please furnish the total amount of transactions, category wise i.e. in equity shares, intra day etc. made through the said

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

90,525/-being payment of leave encashment paid before due\ndate of return, which are subjudice in appeal.\nThereafter, the return was selected for scrutiny under CASS and due\nto partial compliance of notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, order u/s 144\nread with Section 144B of the Act was passed on 19.12.2022\ndetermining total income at Rs.47

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

90,13,010/- respectively after\nmaking certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in first-\nappeal before CIT(A) and succeeded to a large extent. Now, the revenue has\ncome in next appeals before us assailing the relief granted by CIT(A).\n4. Since these appeals relate to the same assessee and certain issues are\nidentical/connected; they were heard together