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

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

money received from such supplies is again routed back to sister concern of the assessee. Ld. A.O accordingly considering the material available on record and finding of the case made the addition of Rs. 23 crores being the amount surrendered by the Chairman of the 44 AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 company during the survey proceedings

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

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

money received from such supplies is again routed back to sister concern of the assessee. Ld. A.O accordingly considering the material available on record and finding of the case made the addition of Rs. 23 crores being the amount surrendered by the Chairman of the 44 AISECT Ltd ITA No.945, 946, 952 & 953/Ind/2019 company during the survey proceedings

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act even when the appellant was not the proprietor of M/s Rukmani Roadlines and Shri Sunil Kumar Lalwani (PAN: AAJPL4938M) himself was the proprietor of M/s Rukmani Roadlines 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him.” 3. The brief facts

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act even when the appellant was not the proprietor of M/s Rukmani Roadlines and Shri Sunil Kumar Lalwani (PAN: AAJPL4938M) himself was the proprietor of M/s Rukmani Roadlines 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him.” 3. The brief facts

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

unexplained money under section 69A of the Act even when the appellant was not the proprietor of M/s Rukmani Roadlines and Shri Sunil Kumar Lalwani (PAN: AAJPL4938M) himself was the proprietor of M/s Rukmani Roadlines 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him.” 3. The brief facts

THE ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S SHUBHAM FININVEST INDIA P LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that in view of paper creditors without financial or commercial substance and failure on part of assessee to produce share applicants for cross examination, the burden of assessee in establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions as required u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act could

THE ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S SHUBHAM FININVEST INDIA P LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that in view of paper creditors without financial or commercial substance and failure on part of assessee to produce share applicants for cross examination, the burden of assessee in establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions as required u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act could

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

money into white. Therefore, the trade value of Rs. 2,09,239/- is an unexplained cash credit as understood within the meaning of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and accordingly Rs. 2,09,239/- is being added to the assessee’s total income under this section.” Thus, the AO has proceeded purely on the assumption that

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

money into white. Therefore, the trade value of Rs. 2,09,239/- is an unexplained cash credit as understood within the meaning of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and accordingly Rs. 2,09,239/- is being added to the assessee’s total income under this section.” Thus, the AO has proceeded purely on the assumption that

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money on account of business receipts. The assessee challenged the action of the ld. AO before Ld. CIT(A) raising various legal ground as well as challenging the additions but partially succeeded. 4. In the meantime, since the assessee was part of the Ramani Group, all the cases of this group including the assessee were 3 Shri Jairam Education

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

unexplained money on account of business receipts. The assessee challenged the action of the ld. AO before Ld. CIT(A) raising various legal ground as well as challenging the additions but partially succeeded. 4. In the meantime, since the assessee was part of the Ramani Group, all the cases of this group including the assessee were 3 Shri Jairam Education

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

purchase of share had been proved-by assessee - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, appellate authorities had rightly deleted impugned addition made by Assessing Officer - Held, yes [para6] [In favour of assessee] ix) Honorable Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. Kansal Fincap Ltd. Reported in 221 Taxman 151 Section 68: Cash credits -Share application money - No addition shall

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

bogus loan to assessee during the year under assessment. In view of above fact, the region for reopening of assessment as recorded following the procedure and law as prescribed the fact and circumstances of the assessee's case are different from the case law cited. In view of the above discussion the objection raised by assessee is disposed

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

purchasing shares of assessee. This finding noted by AO himself in assessment-order clearly shows that “A” and “J” have admitted not only the investment made in assessee but also the source utilized by them for making investment. Thirdly, the assessee has adduced sufficient evidences as enumerated in foregoing para to show that all three ingredients of section

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

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

money in the books of accounts by way of managing bogus LTCG. Ld. AO did not bring on record any specific instance of the assessee having earned any undisclosed income or unexplained investment. Ld. AO failed to bring on record any live link to establish any collusion on the part of assessee to generate the alleged bogus LTCG

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

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

money in the books of accounts by way of managing bogus LTCG. Ld. AO did not bring on record any specific instance of the assessee having earned any undisclosed income or unexplained investment. Ld. AO failed to bring on record any live link to establish any collusion on the part of assessee to generate the alleged bogus LTCG

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

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

money in the books of accounts by way of managing bogus LTCG. Ld. AO did not bring on record any specific instance of the assessee having earned any undisclosed income or unexplained investment. Ld. AO failed to bring on record any live link to establish any collusion on the part of assessee to generate the alleged bogus LTCG

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

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

money in the books of accounts by way of managing bogus LTCG. Ld. AO did not bring on record any specific instance of the assessee having earned any undisclosed income or unexplained investment. Ld. AO failed to bring on record any live link to establish any collusion on the part of assessee to generate the alleged bogus LTCG