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

127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee failed to establish the genuineness of rise of price of the shares within a short period of time then the AO has reached a reasonable conclusion in treating the transactions as bogus and capital gain

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

127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee failed to establish the genuineness of rise of price of the shares within a short period of time then the AO has reached a reasonable conclusion in treating the transactions as bogus and capital gain

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

127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee failed to establish the genuineness of rise of price of the shares within a short period of time then the AO has reached a reasonable conclusion in treating the transactions as bogus and capital gain

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

bogus nature of the subject transactions. This, under such circumstances the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) cannot be said as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, needs to be quashed. M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. Without prejudice further, to the above it is submitted that the recourse to section

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. IDEAL ASHIYANA PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-2(1) M/S Ideal Ashiyana Indore Private Ltd., Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aadci 0029 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Final Hearing 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.12.2022

bogus. The customers furnished the confirmation, copy of bank account and proof of filing of the return. The appellant furnished the following documents in support of his claim. 1. Plot booking form. 2. Copy of sale deed. By filing the above documents the appellant is able to establish the i. Identity of the customers - Most of the customers are income

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

127 xi. Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, reported in (1976) 103 ITR 0344 (Patna HC) xii. Addl.CIT vs. Bahari Brothers, reported in 154 ITR 244 (Patna HC) xiii. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT, reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati HC) xiv. DCIT vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, reported in (2018) 32 ITJ 123 (ITAT, Indore) 23. The Ld. CIT(A) while dealing

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

127 xi. Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, reported in (1976) 103 ITR 0344 (Patna HC) xii. Addl.CIT vs. Bahari Brothers, reported in 154 ITR 244 (Patna HC) xiii. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT, reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati HC) xiv. DCIT vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, reported in (2018) 32 ITJ 123 (ITAT, Indore) 23. The Ld. CIT(A) while dealing

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

127 xi. Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, reported in (1976) 103 ITR 0344 (Patna HC) xii. Addl.CIT vs. Bahari Brothers, reported in 154 ITR 244 (Patna HC) xiii. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT, reported in 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati HC) xiv. DCIT vs. Smt. Namita Patwa, reported in (2018) 32 ITJ 123 (ITAT, Indore) 23. The Ld. CIT(A) while dealing

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 6. In the first appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the documents submitted as evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction are make believe documents

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 6. In the first appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the documents submitted as evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction are make believe documents

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 6. In the first appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the documents submitted as evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction are make believe documents

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 6. In the first appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the documents submitted as evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction are make believe documents

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 6. In the first appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the documents submitted as evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction are make believe documents

SHRI HAKIMUDDIN KHAMBATI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4) RANGE-4, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain from sale of share from Kappac Pharma Ltd and made the addition for Long Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee. Apart from this Ld. Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288 & 410/Ind/2019 A.O has commonly concluded that both the Turbotech Engineering Ltd and Kappac Pharma Ltd are small and penny

SMT. MANISHA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain from sale of share from Kappac Pharma Ltd and made the addition for Long Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee. Apart from this Ld. Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288 & 410/Ind/2019 A.O has commonly concluded that both the Turbotech Engineering Ltd and Kappac Pharma Ltd are small and penny