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

gain on sale of shares of two companies - Assessing Officer, observing that transaction was done through brokers at Calcutta and performance of concerned companies was not such as would justify increase in share prices, held said transaction as bogus and having been done to convert unaccounted money of assessee to accounted income and, therefore, made addition under section

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

capital gain 44,81,373 5 Addition of amounts paid by WCS 35,50,000 6 Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed income 8,42,92,165 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances made by AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal on various grounds assailing

SHRI MOTILAL MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

SHRI VISHNU MUKATI,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

SHRI ASHOK MUKATI,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1 , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

SHRI AKASH MUKATI,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

SHRI BADRILAL GOVINDJI MUKATI,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

SHRI BABULAL MUKATI, INDORE,INDORE vs. PR. CIT -1 , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

SHRI SHANKAR LAL MUKATI-INDORE,INDORE vs. AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

SHRI RADHESHYAM MUKATI , INDORE,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA MUKATI, INDORE,INDORE vs. CIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

SHRI MOTILAL MUKATI (L/H OF SHRI RAMCHANDRA MUKATI INDORE),INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

SHRI TULSI BAI MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE PRICIPLE CIT 1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

SHRI KAMAL KISHORE MUKATI,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

SHRI DILIP MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

capital gains and deductions on the alleged ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.The Appellant prays that since the assessment order passed by the AO was after making specific and full enquiries therefore the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous and accordingly the action of the CIT in invoking provisions

DEVENDRA CHOKSEY,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Devendra Chouksey, Pr. Cit-1, Aayakar Bhawan, 20/8, Shalimar Enclave, 48, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Near Under Bridge, E-3, Vs. Road, Bhopal 462011 Arera Colony, Bhopal 462016 Pan Abapc5311R (Appellant) (Respondent)

433/- on account of conceal profit pertaining to sales and fourth addition of Rs. 37,00,000/- on account of unexplained sundry creditors treating the same as bogus u/s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, from the assessment order it is very clear that the AO made due and sufficient enquiry on all four issues and thereafter, made additions

M/S SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. THE DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gains would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction, if the transfer had not taken place.” 12. At this juncture, therefore, deliberation is required on the main issue as to whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under Section ITA Nos.65/Ind/2017&726/Ind/2017 Asst.Year

M/S SHRI BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,NEEMUCH vs. DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gains would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction, if the transfer had not taken place.” 12. At this juncture, therefore, deliberation is required on the main issue as to whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under Section ITA Nos.65/Ind/2017&726/Ind/2017 Asst.Year