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 long term capital gain when a. All the transactions stand duly established by contemporaneous, independent third party evidences which have not been disproved i.e. purchase

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 long term capital gain when a. All the transactions stand duly established by contemporaneous, independent third party evidences which have not been disproved i.e. purchase

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus business loss through trading of shares of penny stocks ……………” From the above, following is made out – a. Ld. AO has made a very general and vague reference to conduct of search by the Department by using the term ‘various’ for all the stakeholders involved

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus business loss through trading of shares of penny stocks ……………” From the above, following is made out – a. Ld. AO has made a very general and vague reference to conduct of search by the Department by using the term ‘various’ for all the stakeholders involved

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus business loss through trading of shares of penny stocks ……………” From the above, following is made out – a. Ld. AO has made a very general and vague reference to conduct of search by the Department by using the term ‘various’ for all the stakeholders involved

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus business loss through trading of shares of penny stocks ……………” From the above, following is made out – a. Ld. AO has made a very general and vague reference to conduct of search by the Department by using the term ‘various’ for all the stakeholders involved

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus business loss through trading of shares of penny stocks ……………” From the above, following is made out – a. Ld. AO has made a very general and vague reference to conduct of search by the Department by using the term ‘various’ for all the stakeholders involved

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus business loss through trading of shares of penny stocks ……………” From the above, following is made out – a. Ld. AO has made a very general and vague reference to conduct of search by the Department by using the term ‘various’ for all the stakeholders involved

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

bogus; in Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 fact no real capital gain have been earned by the assessee as the observation made by Ld. A.O, rather the same has been introduced from undisclosed sources. Ultimately the exemption on account of Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.23,25,000/- on the said alleged penny

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

bogus; in Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 fact no real capital gain have been earned by the assessee as the observation made by Ld. A.O, rather the same has been introduced from undisclosed sources. Ultimately the exemption on account of Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.23,25,000/- on the said alleged penny

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

bogus; in Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 fact no real capital gain have been earned by the assessee as the observation made by Ld. A.O, rather the same has been introduced from undisclosed sources. Ultimately the exemption on account of Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.23,25,000/- on the said alleged penny

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

bogus; in Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 fact no real capital gain have been earned by the assessee as the observation made by Ld. A.O, rather the same has been introduced from undisclosed sources. Ultimately the exemption on account of Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.23,25,000/- on the said alleged penny

SMT. RUKMANI 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

bogus; in Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 fact no real capital gain have been earned by the assessee as the observation made by Ld. A.O, rather the same has been introduced from undisclosed sources. Ultimately the exemption on account of Long Term Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.23,25,000/- on the said alleged penny

MANORAMA DEVI SHARMA,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

Long Term Capital Gain as “Penny Stock”, a term nowhere define under the Income Tax Act as any other law for the time being in force, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2 Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, 4. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

PRATAP BAJAJ,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

Long Term Capital Gain as “Penny Stock”, a term nowhere define under the Income Tax Act as any other law for the time being in force, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2 Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, 4. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

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

bogus long term capital gain from purchases and sales of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited. 9. Since

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

bogus long term capital gain from purchases and sales of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited. 9. Since

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

long-term capital gain on compulsory acquisition of a part of the house of the assessee. Accordingly, ground no.5 raised in the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Ground No.6 15. In ground no.6, the assessee has challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.12,86,090/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained/bogus