ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

bogus, i.e. no purchases are made then how can there be any sale of that material. Undue importance is given about the TIN number of the registration under the Gumasta Act. No cognizance has been taken that all the transactions have been undertaken through the banking channel. Even the bank accounts of the seller show that purchases and sales have

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

bogus, i.e. no purchases are made then how can there be any sale of that material. Undue importance is given about the TIN number of the registration under the Gumasta Act. No cognizance has been taken that all the transactions have been undertaken through the banking channel. Even the bank accounts of the seller show that purchases and sales have

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

154 (Kar.HC) has held that if the assessee had invested the amount received on sale of capital asset either in purchasing a residential house or in construction of a residential house, even though the transactions are not complete in all respects, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit under s.54F of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble High court

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

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

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

purchased the share form that broker innocently and bonafidely and if he shows his bona fide in transaction by showing relevant material, facts and circumstances and documents, then merely on the basis of the reason that share broker was involved in dealing in the share of a particular co. in collusion with others or in the manner of unfair trade

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

purchase of those penny stock shares which was not offered in the IDS scheme. Hence there is no error in the addition so made by the A.O. The reliance is placed on Hon'ble Delhi High Court order in the case of PCIT v. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. [(2019) 410 ITR 3 (Del)], wherein it was held that tax authorities

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchase and sale of LTCG are not genuine and has taken bogus entry of LTCG. (i) Sumati Dayal a. CIT· (I 995) 2 J.1 JTH 801 (S C); (ii) Durga Prasad More - 82ITR 540 (SC) (iii) Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. - 154 ITR 148 (SC), (iv) Asst. CIT u. Sam Nath Mani . (2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd) (v) Gooinda Rajulu Mudal.iar

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchase and sale of LTCG are not genuine and has taken bogus entry of LTCG. (i) Sumati Dayal a. CIT· (I 995) 2 J.1 JTH 801 (S C); (ii) Durga Prasad More - 82ITR 540 (SC) (iii) Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd. - 154 ITR 148 (SC), (iv) Asst. CIT u. Sam Nath Mani . (2006) 100 TTJ 917 (Chd) (v) Gooinda Rajulu Mudal.iar

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

bogus and sham and taxing them as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

bogus and sham and taxing them as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

bogus and sham and taxing them as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act by both the lower authorities. As the issues raised are common these three appeals were heard together and being disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 4. For the purpose of adjudication we will take up the facts of Smt. Annapurna

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

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 with this issue categorically analysed the observation made by the Ld. AO in the following manner: “4.3.2 The appellant further submitted that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

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 with this issue categorically analysed the observation made by the Ld. AO in the following manner: “4.3.2 The appellant further submitted that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

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 with this issue categorically analysed the observation made by the Ld. AO in the following manner: “4.3.2 The appellant further submitted that

M/S PUMARTH PROPERTIES & HOLDING (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

purchase the entire price paid would be in the nature of capital outlay and no part of it can be set off as expenditure against income accruing on those securities. The real objection of the Department appears to be that the assessee is getting tax-free dividend; that at the same time it is claiming loss on the sale

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

bogus loan to assessee during the year under assessment. In view of above fact, the region for reopening of assessment as recorded following the procedure and law as prescribed the fact and circumstances of the assessee's case are different from the case law cited. In view of the above discussion the objection raised by assessee is disposed