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

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- was already for consideration and decision before CIT(A), the AO’s order qua this issue stood merged in the order of CIT(A) and the PCIT did not have jurisdiction to take up revisionary action u/s 263 due to ‘doctrine of merger’ as provided in Explanation 1(c) to section

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

bogus long term capital gain by manipulating shares prices at stock exchange of various penny stocks. The AO then examined the assessee by recording his statement on 14.12.2016 and then held that the long term capital gain claimed by the assessee is nothing but unaccounted income of the assessee is introduced to avoid the tax liability. Aggrieved by the said

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

price of the House. Thus, it is most humbly submitted that necessary directions be issued to the Ld. A.O. to compute the capital gain after allowing all the legitimate deductions as claimed by the appellant in the return of income. Now, the appellant is submitting the following documents in support of his explanation for deductions claimed while computing the chargeable

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

price. This fact alone vitiates the case of revenue. 17. We also find that the Ld. AO has raised objection regarding the cash purchase of shares and that shares were dematerialized few days back only from the date of sale. There is no law which prohibits the purchase of shares in cash, however in the present case, assessee had filed

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

price. This fact alone vitiates the case of revenue. 17. We also find that the Ld. AO has raised objection regarding the cash purchase of shares and that shares were dematerialized few days back only from the date of sale. There is no law which prohibits the purchase of shares in cash, however in the present case, assessee had filed

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

price. This fact alone vitiates the case of revenue. 17. We also find that the Ld. AO has raised objection regarding the cash purchase of shares and that shares were dematerialized few days back only from the date of sale. There is no law which prohibits the purchase of shares in cash, however in the present case, assessee had filed

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

price. This fact alone vitiates the case of revenue. 17. We also find that the Ld. AO has raised objection regarding the cash purchase of shares and that shares were dematerialized few days back only from the date of sale. There is no law which prohibits the purchase of shares in cash, however in the present case, assessee had filed

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

price. This fact alone vitiates the case of revenue. 17. We also find that the Ld. AO has raised objection regarding the cash purchase of shares and that shares were dematerialized few days back only from the date of sale. There is no law which prohibits the purchase of shares in cash, however in the present case, assessee had filed

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 accommodation entries of long term capital gain arising from purchase and sale of shares of certain penny stock companies. Though the term “penny stock” has not been defined either in the SEBI Act or any other statute however, as it is apparent from the term penny, where the price of shares is not more than a penny is called

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 accommodation entries of long term capital gain arising from purchase and sale of shares of certain penny stock companies. Though the term “penny stock” has not been defined either in the SEBI Act or any other statute however, as it is apparent from the term penny, where the price of shares is not more than a penny is called

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 accommodation entries of long term capital gain arising from purchase and sale of shares of certain penny stock companies. Though the term “penny stock” has not been defined either in the SEBI Act or any other statute however, as it is apparent from the term penny, where the price of shares is not more than a penny is called

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

transferred the loan amount to the assessee firm. (iv) copy of income tax return, PAN and balance sheet of the three companies for the year under appeal. (v) copy of assessment orders (vi) copy of bank statement of the assessee firm wherein credit of unsecured loans is accepted and appearing. (vii) copy of loan account of the loan creditors

SMT. SARLA JAIN,KHANDWA vs. ITO WARD 1 KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sarla Jain, Ito, C/O Nakoda Marketing, Ward-1, बनाम/ Bhavani Mata Road, Khandwa Khandwa Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpj1316J Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

bogus. 18. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the lower-authorities have wrongly treated the capital gain declared by assessee as non-genuine. He submitted that the assessee purchased 3,000 shares @ Rs. 10 per share for a total consideration of Rs. 30,000 in September, 2012 off-market in physical form and after purchase, the shares were transferred

THE JCIT RANGE-3, INDORE vs. SHRI AMANDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jcit, Range-3 Shri Amandeep Singh Indore Bhatia बनाम/ 8/5, Bcc House, Manoramaganj, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Agopb 3205 E Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ar Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

transferred in the D-MAT account of the assessee maintained with Indusind Bank. The AO himself on inner Page No 12 to 14 of the assessment order, reproduced the transactions executed through D-MAT account. Hence, date of purchase of and holding of these shares with the appellant was not in dispute by the AO also The AO disbelieved

SHIVKRIPA DEVCON P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13

bogus gain or loss. Ultimately, in Para No. 18, the AO doubted the purchase and sale of shares by assessee and thereby did not Page 2 of 6 Shivkrips Devcon Pvt.Limited,Indore vs. ITO Wd.5(1), Indore. A. Y. : 2012-13 accept the short-term loss suffered by assessee as genuine and made addition. Ld. AO also relied upon following