DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the department on various brokers of stock exchange and other companies where the investigation team came across various bogus transactions of providing accommodation entries to give benefit to various persons to convert their unaccounted cash into accounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. Ld. A.O also took statement

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

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the department on various brokers of stock exchange and other companies where the investigation team came across various bogus transactions of providing accommodation entries to give benefit to various persons to convert their unaccounted cash into accounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. Ld. A.O also took statement

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

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the department on various brokers of stock exchange and other companies where the investigation team came across various bogus transactions of providing accommodation entries to give benefit to various persons to convert their unaccounted cash into accounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. Ld. A.O also took statement

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

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the department on various brokers of stock exchange and other companies where the investigation team came across various bogus transactions of providing accommodation entries to give benefit to various persons to convert their unaccounted cash into accounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. Ld. A.O also took statement

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

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the department on various brokers of stock exchange and other companies where the investigation team came across various bogus transactions of providing accommodation entries to give benefit to various persons to convert their unaccounted cash into accounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. Ld. A.O also took statement

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the department on various brokers of stock exchange and other companies where the investigation team came across various bogus transactions of providing accommodation entries to give benefit to various persons to convert their unaccounted cash into accounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. Ld. A.O also took statement

NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

survey action u/s 133A by Investigation Unit Mumbai under Project Falcon, it was found that various brokers are engaged in facilitating fictitious losses through coordinated and premeditated trading in illiquid stock options. One of such stock brokers admitted in his statement that he was engaged in providing fictitious losses/profit through BSE equity/derivative trading through his concern M/s Xpro Securities

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act at the premises of assessee Shri Manish Kothari. (iv) Apart from the above the remaining grounds are either consequential in nature relating to interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act or premature and others are general in nature. 30. As regards the first common issue challenging the reassessment

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act at the premises of assessee Shri Manish Kothari. (iv) Apart from the above the remaining grounds are either consequential in nature relating to interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act or premature and others are general in nature. 30. As regards the first common issue challenging the reassessment

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act at the premises of assessee Shri Manish Kothari. (iv) Apart from the above the remaining grounds are either consequential in nature relating to interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act or premature and others are general in nature. 30. As regards the first common issue challenging the reassessment

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act at the premises of assessee Shri Manish Kothari. (iv) Apart from the above the remaining grounds are either consequential in nature relating to interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act or premature and others are general in nature. 30. As regards the first common issue challenging the reassessment

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act at the premises of assessee Shri Manish Kothari. (iv) Apart from the above the remaining grounds are either consequential in nature relating to interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act or premature and others are general in nature. 30. As regards the first common issue challenging the reassessment

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act at the premises of assessee Shri Manish Kothari. (iv) Apart from the above the remaining grounds are either consequential in nature relating to interest u/s 234A & 234B of the Act or premature and others are general in nature. 30. As regards the first common issue challenging the reassessment

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order that there is no denying to the fact that the assessce has traded on NMCE through registered brokers as their client and the trading details are as per the contract notes issued by them for NMCE transactions. 4.2.3 A survey was conducted on the appellant on 18.12.2014 by the Investigation Wing Ahmedabad along with search / survey operations

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment order that there is no denying to the fact that the assessce has traded on NMCE through registered brokers as their client and the trading details are as per the contract notes issued by them for NMCE transactions. 4.2.3 A survey was conducted on the appellant on 18.12.2014 by the Investigation Wing Ahmedabad along with search / survey operations

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

survey\nrevealing the booking of bogus expenses/loss by assessee/proprietorship\nconcern of assessee. The third fact we find is that the ITO-1, Khandawa had\nno basis to send a letter to the AO for passing adverse information against\nassessee. When it is so, the reasons recorded by AO are mere allegations\nand do not have any validity. We accept

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

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/ if any communication communication given assessee received adjournment received/ not received Notice u/s 148 30.06.2022 29.05.2022 Not - - - received Notice u/s 04.01.2023 19.01.2023 Not - - - 142(1) of the received Act Notice u/s 25.01.2023 03.02.2023 Received 08.02.2023 Part

RAKESH KUMAR SOMANI,KHANDWA vs. ITO-1, KHANDWA, KHANDWA

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradrakesh Kumar Somani, Ito-1, 10, Ramganj Road, Khandwa Vs. Khandwa (M.P) (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Azgps3988J Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024 O R D E R

u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Rakesh Kumar Somani assessee on 27.7.2012 and so far as the relevant appeal is concerned a Saudha Chitthi dated 30.09.2010 was found at his premises which contained the transaction of sale of agriculture land situated at Gram Torni, Tehsil Khandwa for a consideration of Rs.91