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

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

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

92 of paper book Vol.I] and other papers on record we observe as under:-\n(i) On Page 73 of paper book Vol.I Auditor Report u/s 44AB of the Act para 3(a)(1) states that \"The cash in hand and stock in trade having been taken as correct as valued and certified by the management\". In addition there

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

section 68 was not sustainable. 7. In identical circumstances, in the case of M/s. Kamlesh Dal Mills, Khirkiya, the addition for such purchases of grains from farmers through mandi was deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 256/IND/ 2023 vide order dated 25.10.2023. The copy of the said order is placed at PB 77-81.” 4.1 He further

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

92,345\n20,20,000\n0\nCash was withdrawn from bank at\nIndore for making purchases. The\nassessee purchased goods as under :-\nOn 03-09-2016\n7,51,769/-\nOn 04-09-2016\n1,30,477/-\nOn 06-09-2016\n6,52,922/-\nOn 07-09-2016\n1,31,230/-\nOn 08-09-2016\n8,50,954/-\nCash of Rs.2

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

bogus and disallowable. - CIT vs. Nangalia Fabrics P.Ltd., (2014) 220 Taxman 17 (Mag) (Guj) - Rajesh P. Soni v. ACIT, (2006) 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.)(Trib) - CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises (P)Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Bom) - G. G. Disamond International v. Dy. CIT, 104 TTJ 809 (Mum)(Trib) - ITO v. Surana Traders, (2005) 92 ITD 212 (Mum)(Trib.) - Balaji

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

Appeals are dismissed

purchases were made during\nthe year). Thus, the appellant has discharged the onus cast upon it. It was\nopen to the AO to cross verify the invoices from market during Remand stage\nwhich could not be done at assessment stage due to Covid Pandemic. But this\nwas not done. No fault has been reported by the AO in Remand Report

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

Appeals are dismissed

bogus and entry provider but\nthe Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal held otherwise on perusal of the audited\naccounts of the lender - demonstrating enough reserves and surplus.\nFacts on record, appellant's submission and case laws have been perused. The\naddition was made first by the AO in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated\n29.12.2019 for want of documents other than

PATIDAR BUILER PRIVATE LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed partly

92,730/- after making certain disallowances/additions.\nAggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and got part relief. Still\naggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.\n3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under:\n“ 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A)\nerred in confirming the addition

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

92,446/- during the year under consideration. That this amount of expenditure was considered in the cost of the project as development expenditure and carried forward as the cost of WIP. 2.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was explained to the Learned AO that the appellant has claimed the interest expenditure as revenue expenditure in the immediately preceding

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

92,446/- during the year under consideration. That this amount of expenditure was considered in the cost of the project as development expenditure and carried forward as the cost of WIP. 2.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was explained to the Learned AO that the appellant has claimed the interest expenditure as revenue expenditure in the immediately preceding

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

92,446/- during the year under consideration. That this amount of expenditure was considered in the cost of the project as development expenditure and carried forward as the cost of WIP. 2.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was explained to the Learned AO that the appellant has claimed the interest expenditure as revenue expenditure in the immediately preceding

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

92,49,200 ÷ 3,83,080). Ld. AR submitted that the premium of Rs. 990/- received by assessee in preceding AY has been accepted by department without any objection. Therefore, the AO is wrong in raising objection in current year. Without prejudice, Ld. AR submitted that neither the assessee is obligated to explain fair value for section

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

92,830/- and in the case of Manorama Devi Sharma of Rs. 28,24,342/-arose from sale of equity shares of Sunrise Asian Limited ( in short ‘SAL’). He also submitted that originally the assessee(s) purchased the shares of M/s.Conart Traders Ltd. but subsequently, M/s.Conart Traders Ltd. was merged with Sunrise Asian Limited (SAL), pursuant to order

MANORAMA DEVI SHARMA,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), 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

92,830/- and in the case of Manorama Devi Sharma of Rs. 28,24,342/-arose from sale of equity shares of Sunrise Asian Limited ( in short ‘SAL’). He also submitted that originally the assessee(s) purchased the shares of M/s.Conart Traders Ltd. but subsequently, M/s.Conart Traders Ltd. was merged with Sunrise Asian Limited (SAL), pursuant to order

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

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

bogus\npurchases without any evidence\ncannot be a basis for rejection of\nbooks of account.\n1.5) The assessing authority vide Para 7.8 and 7.9 at page 15 of\nAssessment order applied gross profit rate of 7.20% being average gross\nprofit earned in preceding three years viz. A.Y. 2018-19 (7.92%), 2019-20\n(7.71%) & 2020-21(5.96%) based on above

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

section 69A and for that matter the higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE. To support this submission, Ld. AR relied upon the decision in Basir Ahmed Sisodia Vs. ITO (2020) 116 taxmann.com 375 (SC), para No. 14 to 16, which reads as under: “13. Reverting to the findings and conclusions recorded by the Officer and which commended to the appellate