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

loss totaling Rs.18,504/-. The Ld.CIT(A) accordingly treated Rs.6,62,870/- as income from unknown sources after giving benefit of purchase cost of Rs.1,19,530/- against the sale consideration. 10. Before moving further we will like to reproduce the findings of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s Himani M Vakil [2014] 41 taxmann.com

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

loss totaling Rs.18,504/-. The Ld.CIT(A) accordingly treated Rs.6,62,870/- as income from unknown sources after giving benefit of purchase cost of Rs.1,19,530/- against the sale consideration. 10. Before moving further we will like to reproduce the findings of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s Himani M Vakil [2014] 41 taxmann.com

DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI PRAKASH BHOJWANI, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Shri Prakash Bhojwani, 1(1), H.No. 7, Parika Phase-I, Bhopal Walmi Road, बनाम/ Chuna Bhatti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue / Respondent) (Assessee / Appellant) Pan: Abvpb 8825 E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

gain of Rs. 62,52,950/- and after claiming carry forward capital loss of Rs. 5.24 lakh, the net amount

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

carry out hedging transaction of the foreign currency. A sum of Rs.118.32 crores is claimed as foreign exchange fluctuation expenditure which also includes “marked to market” loss of notional nature at Rs.2,82,42,778/-. Both the lower authorities have allowed the claim of foreign exchange fluctuation expenditure except for the notional loss of Rs.2

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

carried forward as such as closing balance on 31.03.2015. Thus, the evidences placed by the assessee clearly demonstrate that no transaction had been done. During hearing, Ld. DR is not able to controvert these submissions of assessee. In this view of matter, we are inclined to agree with Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not done any transaction

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

carried out by investigation wing of Kolkata which revealed that there was an organized racket of generating bogus entries of LTCG which is exempt u/s 10(38). In this case, the appellant had purchased 6000 shares of Surabhi Chemicals and Investments Ltd. from Akriti Advisory Services Ltd. offline for Rs.25/- each (face value Rs.10) when the same was being traded

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

carried out. The appellant has not produced the evidences in support of this claim. From details and documents, it is noticed that:- I. The assessee has not made any investment in shares ever in any scrip other than M/s Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. which clearly shows that the assessee has no knowledge of the market and the present transactions

SHRI ABHISHEK GUPTA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

carrying out survey and the office of AO informed that new notice of hearing would be issued. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has, however, filed the aforesaid affidavit to Ld. AO but the Ld. AO has ignored the affidavit. Referring to Point No. 4 of the affidavit, Ld. AR also pointed that the assessee has clearly averred

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

Loss account of M/s Samarath Impex along with the copy of Ledger A/c of Commission & Brokerage in the books of accounts of the assessee is enclosed for your kind reference. 8) Detail of the TDS as deducted by various parties in the year under consideration along with the reconciliation of Form 26AS with the books of accounts of the assessee

PARMANAND SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO 5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

Forwarding-Letter embodied in the Report: “We identified the following BSE listed penny stocks which have been used for generating bogus LTCG: SL No Script Script Full Name of Amount of Total Code Name Penny Stock Value 62 504358 Turbo Tech Turbotech 8319513048 Engineering Ltd. Page No. 12 / 14 of the Report Page 10 of 17 Shri Parmanand Sachdev Assessment

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

gain 44,81,373 5 Addition of amounts paid by WCS 35,50,000 6 Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed income 8,42,92,165 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances made by AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal on various grounds assailing the relief

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

losses by the beneficiaries. In reply to question No.8, the modus-operandi of bogus LCTG / STCL entry obtained by the beneficiary was explained. However, the same is general elaboration and do not taint the transactions carried out by the assessee-huf. Regarding role of Shri Anil Agarwal, it was submitted that he introduced the directors of FFSL and Rutron International