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

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2,14,89,722/- as evident from the schedule of other income enclosed at page no. 81. 4.25 The AO has also stated that the financial of Mr. Amit Sand proprietor of M's Konica Gems were not filed by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was informed by Mr. Sand that he has already complied with

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2,14,89,722/- as evident from the schedule of other income enclosed at page no. 81. 4.25 The AO has also stated that the financial of Mr. Amit Sand proprietor of M's Konica Gems were not filed by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was informed by Mr. Sand that he has already complied with

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

2,14,89,722/- as evident from the schedule of other income enclosed at page no. 81. 4.25 The AO has also stated that the financial of Mr. Amit Sand proprietor of M's Konica Gems were not filed by the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant was informed by Mr. Sand that he has already complied with

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

2 per share Total purchase consideration paid Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Date of shares sold 23.07.2013 06.09.2013 19.10.2013 24.09.2013 (3000 shares), (10000 shares) (10000 shares) 03.09.2013 (3000 shares) and 10.09.2013 (4000 shares) Sale Price per share Rs. 314.88, Rs. 276.70 Rs. 178. 85 Rs. 182.60 Rs. 151.25 per share per share

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

2 per share Total purchase consideration paid Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Date of shares sold 23.07.2013 06.09.2013 19.10.2013 24.09.2013 (3000 shares), (10000 shares) (10000 shares) 03.09.2013 (3000 shares) and 10.09.2013 (4000 shares) Sale Price per share Rs. 314.88, Rs. 276.70 Rs. 178. 85 Rs. 182.60 Rs. 151.25 per share per share

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

2 per share Total purchase consideration paid Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Date of shares sold 23.07.2013 06.09.2013 19.10.2013 24.09.2013 (3000 shares), (10000 shares) (10000 shares) 03.09.2013 (3000 shares) and 10.09.2013 (4000 shares) Sale Price per share Rs. 314.88, Rs. 276.70 Rs. 178. 85 Rs. 182.60 Rs. 151.25 per share per share

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

2 per share Total purchase consideration paid Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Date of shares sold 23.07.2013 06.09.2013 19.10.2013 24.09.2013 (3000 shares), (10000 shares) (10000 shares) 03.09.2013 (3000 shares) and 10.09.2013 (4000 shares) Sale Price per share Rs. 314.88, Rs. 276.70 Rs. 178. 85 Rs. 182.60 Rs. 151.25 per share per share

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

2 per share Total purchase consideration paid Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Date of shares sold 23.07.2013 06.09.2013 19.10.2013 24.09.2013 (3000 shares), (10000 shares) (10000 shares) 03.09.2013 (3000 shares) and 10.09.2013 (4000 shares) Sale Price per share Rs. 314.88, Rs. 276.70 Rs. 178. 85 Rs. 182.60 Rs. 151.25 per share per share

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

127 Taxmann.com 735 where a deposit upto Rs. 2.50 lakh was held to be acceptable for homemakers. However, the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the submission of assessee who held that the cash was found with assessee in Jaipur though the assessee belonged to Ratlam. He also held that the CBDT Press Release/Instruction as well as the decision

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

2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee

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

2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee

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

2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus. In view of above, we reverse the order of the lower authorities and allow the common grounds of assessee’s appeal. " 53. It is rioted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the above order by their judgment dated 19.06.2018 in GA No.747 of 2017.Respectfully following the law laid

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus. In view of above, we reverse the order of the lower authorities and allow the common grounds of assessee’s appeal. " 53. It is rioted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the above order by their judgment dated 19.06.2018 in GA No.747 of 2017.Respectfully following the law laid

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus. In view of above, we reverse the order of the lower authorities and allow the common grounds of assessee’s appeal. " 53. It is rioted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue against the above order by their judgment dated 19.06.2018 in GA No.747 of 2017.Respectfully following the law laid

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2) have already elapsed. In other words the references is to those assessments in whose case assessment under section 143 (3) cannot now be done. It is not at all the case of the revenue that in the appeals which have been claimed as unabated here there was time for assessment under section 143(3). In this view

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

2) have already elapsed. In other words the references is to those assessments in whose case assessment under section 143 (3) cannot now be done. It is not at all the case of the revenue that in the appeals which have been claimed as unabated here there was time for assessment under section 143(3). In this view