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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

purchased by paper entities could also not be sustained. 6.3 So far as the observations of Ld. AO as to financial and profitability of SMIL is concerned, we find that the sales transactions have taken place in online mechanism through recognized stock exchange wherein the identity of the buyer would not be known and there would be no privity

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

purchased by paper entities could also not be sustained. 6.3 So far as the observations of Ld. AO as to financial and profitability of SMIL is concerned, we find that the sales transactions have taken place in online mechanism through recognized stock exchange wherein the identity of the buyer would not be known and there would be no privity

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

purchased by paper entities could also not be sustained. 6.3 So far as the observations of Ld. AO as to financial and profitability of SMIL is concerned, we find that the sales transactions have taken place in online mechanism through recognized stock exchange wherein the identity of the buyer would not be known and there would be no privity

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

purchased by paper entities could also not be sustained. 6.3 So far as the observations of Ld. AO as to financial and profitability of SMIL is concerned, we find that the sales transactions have taken place in online mechanism through recognized stock exchange wherein the identity of the buyer would not be known and there would be no privity

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

127 Taxman 523 (Gujrat), Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 ITR 195, Oasis Hospitalities (P) Ltd. 333 ITR 119 (Delhi) and Fair Finvest Ltd. 357 ITR 146 (Delhi). (vii) The assessee-company has issued identical shares at identical premium in preceding AY 2011-12. This point was categorically submitted to AO in Point No. (ii) of the letter dated

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

section 10(38) of the Act and the relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench contained at Para 8 read as under:- "8. The assessee has earned speculation profit in the immediately preceding year through M/s Eden Financial Services also and the said profit has been used to purchase the shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. The assessee has offered