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

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

bogus purchases were made. ix. Copy of sales tax orders of the aforesaid entities duly confirming the purchase/sales made by suppliers. x. Copy of sales tax order of the assessee company duly confirming the sale of the assessee. xi. Names of all the suppliers, address of the suppliers, name of the contact persons, their telephone Number along with documentary proof

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

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

bogus purchases were made. ix. Copy of sales tax orders of the aforesaid entities duly confirming the purchase/sales made by suppliers. x. Copy of sales tax order of the assessee company duly confirming the sale of the assessee. xi. Names of all the suppliers, address of the suppliers, name of the contact persons, their telephone Number along with documentary proof

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

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

bogus purchases were made. ix. Copy of sales tax orders of the aforesaid entities duly confirming the purchase/sales made by suppliers. x. Copy of sales tax order of the assessee company duly confirming the sale of the assessee. xi. Names of all the suppliers, address of the suppliers, name of the contact persons, their telephone Number along with documentary proof

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

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

bogus purchases were made. ix. Copy of sales tax orders of the aforesaid entities duly confirming the purchase/sales made by suppliers. x. Copy of sales tax order of the assessee company duly confirming the sale of the assessee. xi. Names of all the suppliers, address of the suppliers, name of the contact persons, their telephone Number along with documentary proof

DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MANIDHARI JEWELLERS, BHOPAL

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit-3(1), Manidhari Jewellers, बनाम/ Bhopal Room No.202, Vs. Metro Walk Bulding, Bitten Market, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Abafm6546L) (Revenue) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

bogus transactions which he has highlighted in his statement and surrendered undisclosed income of Rs.87.85 Lac. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee is beneficiary in these transactions”. 2.4 That during the course of the reassessment proceedings following opportunities were given which are tabulated below:- Type Date Date Response Date Response Remarks Notice/ Notice/ Compliance of the Response (Full/part

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

purchase and sale of shares could not be verified. The AO, therefore, treated the 'capital gain' as bogus and disallowed the long-term 'capital gain', sought to be exempted under s. 54 of the Act, to the tune of Rs. 15,33,160 and added back the same as income from undisclosed

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

bogus and had made the aforesaid addition. However, the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal returned findings of fact to the contrary. The Tribunal also noted that the departmental representative could not challenge the factual finding recorded by the Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals). Nor could he advance any substantive argument in support

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

undisclosed income of the assessee company. It might be that there were some bogus share-holders in whose name the share had been issued and the money might have been provided by some other person. If the assessment of the person who were alleged to have really advanced the money was sought to be reopened, that would have made some

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

undisclosed income of the assessee company. It might be that there were some bogus share-holders in whose name the share had been issued and the money might have been provided by some other person. If the assessment of the person who were alleged to have really advanced the money was sought to be reopened, that would have made some

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

undisclosed income of the assessee company. It might be that there were some bogus share-holders in whose name the share had been issued and the money might have been provided by some other person. If the assessment of the person who were alleged to have really advanced the money was sought to be reopened, that would have made some

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

undisclosed income of the assessee company. It might be that there were some bogus share-holders in whose name the share had been issued and the money might have been provided by some other person. If the assessment of the person who were alleged to have really advanced the money was sought to be reopened, that would have made some

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

undisclosed income of the assessee company. It might be that there were some bogus share-holders in whose name the share had been issued and the money might have been provided by some other person. If the assessment of the person who were alleged to have really advanced the money was sought to be reopened, that would have made some

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

bogus and thereby making the addition u/s 68 of the Act without allowing brokerage expenses. The assessee is an individual and derives income from sale and purchase of shares as well as interest. The assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 31st July 2014 declaring total income of Rs.7498/- after claiming the exemption

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

bogus and thereby making the addition u/s 68 of the Act without allowing brokerage expenses. The assessee is an individual and derives income from sale and purchase of shares as well as interest. The assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 31st July 2014 declaring total income of Rs.7498/- after claiming the exemption

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

bogus and thereby making the addition u/s 68 of the Act without allowing brokerage expenses. The assessee is an individual and derives income from sale and purchase of shares as well as interest. The assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 31st July 2014 declaring total income of Rs.7498/- after claiming the exemption

SHRI M A KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A Nos.37 To 42/Ind/2015 & Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2010-11 Late M.A. Khan Acit 3(1) (Through L/H Nazhat Bhopal Parveen Khan) बनाम/ B-90, Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aewpk 3620 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

undisclosed income”. He would further submit that due to this material change, the present scheme u/s 153A to 153D is a “full-fledged” type of assessment wherein the concept of “incriminating material” is not applicable because the AO has full power to assess the total income, which may or may not be based on incriminating material. According

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

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

undisclosed income, since the said\namount has already been included in sales and hence in total income. The honourable\nDelhi High Court accepted the contention of the assessee.\n11. In case of CIT vs. Jindal Dyechem Industries P. Ltd. ITA 283/2011 & ITA 343/2011 April\n18, 2012 (2012) 81 CCH 0025 DelHC, The Assessing Officer, while making the\nassessment in respect

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

undisclosed income of the assessee. The AO also observed that the assessee has claimed to have collected identical share premium in Page 18 of 44 M/s Decent Industries Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 356/Ind/2023 – AY 2012-13 preceding year but such fact cannot be a basis to discharge the burden to prove genuineness of transactions in current year. Further, the assessee

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

purchase and sale of shares are arranged transactions to create bogus profit in the garb of LTCG by well-organized network of entry providers with the sole motive to sell such entries to enable the beneficiary to account for the undisclosed income