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

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

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

SHRI OM PRAKASH PHATANDAS PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

transferred to demat account on 13.8.2007 and immediately thereafter these shares were sold. Purchase price of Rs.1,19,530/- was paid on 1.07.2007. The Ld.AO called for the details from the broker Chandravadan Bhaichand Muchchala, Mumbai as well as National Security Exchange. He was not convinced even though confirmation of account confirming the impugned transaction was received. The Ld.A.O doubted

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

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

bogus entries of LTCG. Thus, the A.O. has despite specific input has accepted the capital gains without verification. On this basis the order u/s 143(3) has been held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Before the Ld. PCIT a detailed submission was made and it was submitted that the assessee has purchased the shares

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

bogus entries of LTCG. Thus, the A.O. has despite specific input has accepted the capital gains without verification. On this basis the order u/s 143(3) has been held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Before the Ld. PCIT a detailed submission was made and it was submitted that the assessee has purchased the shares

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

bogus entries of LTCG. Thus, the A.O. has despite specific input has accepted the capital gains without verification. On this basis the order u/s 143(3) has been held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Before the Ld. PCIT a detailed submission was made and it was submitted that the assessee has purchased the shares

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

bogus entries of LTCG. Thus, the A.O. has despite specific input has accepted the capital gains without verification. On this basis the order u/s 143(3) has been held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Before the Ld. PCIT a detailed submission was made and it was submitted that the assessee has purchased the shares

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

bogus entries of LTCG. Thus, the A.O. has despite specific input has accepted the capital gains without verification. On this basis the order u/s 143(3) has been held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Before the Ld. PCIT a detailed submission was made and it was submitted that the assessee has purchased the shares

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

bogus entries of LTCG. Thus, the A.O. has despite specific input has accepted the capital gains without verification. On this basis the order u/s 143(3) has been held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Before the Ld. PCIT a detailed submission was made and it was submitted that the assessee has purchased the shares

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

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

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. 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

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