THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT CAPITALS MARKETS LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

survey u/s 133A was carried out on 29.12.2015 which continued till 02.01.2016. Regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central – 1), Indore on 16.12.2016 wherein the returned income was accepted. Later on the case was reopened u/s 148 vide notice dated 10.12.2018 and the reassessment

THE ACIT, CENTRAL - UJJAIN, INDORE vs. M/S ARIHANT FUTURE & COMMADITIES LTD , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicialmember & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing &

survey u/s 133A was carried out on 29.12.2015 which continued till 02.01.2016. Regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central – 1), Indore on 16.12.2016 wherein the returned income was accepted. Later on the case was reopened u/s 148 vide notice dated 10.12.2018 and the reassessment

HARISH CHANDRA PUROHIT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, RATLAM, RATLAM

In the result- the Impugned order is set aside as and by way

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

133A of the Act which has been duly included in the return of income of Rs. 68,29,140/- wherein tax was paid at Rs. 25,48,900/-, However, on going through the statement recorded during survey action, it could not be substantiated that the appellant has declared the same cash as deposited while making payment of advance tax. Earlier

AJIT KUMAR JAIN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2006-07

reassessment proceedings, issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and consequent assessment order dated 17.1.2014 has been made after assuming valid jurisdiction, therefore, legal ground 1 & 2 may kindly be dismissed. 6. On careful consideration of rival submissions first of all we note that the Ld. AO recorded following reasons before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. “ Reasons

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

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

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

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

133A of IT Act which is evident from the fact that an amount of Rs. 1,96,900/- on account of angiography was not at all taken in to account while passing the order. (5) The A.O. has failed to make analysis of year wise investment. Further the A.O. has failed to note and bring on record that after

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

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