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

Capital Gain. Therefore the assessment order of Ld. A.O dated 22.12.2016 cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus quash the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act as the action of Ld. PCIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by the binding precedence and restore the assessment order

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

Capital Gain. Therefore the assessment order of Ld. A.O dated 22.12.2016 cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus quash the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act as the action of Ld. PCIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by the binding precedence and restore the assessment order

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

Capital Gain. Therefore the assessment order of Ld. A.O dated 22.12.2016 cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus quash the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act as the action of Ld. PCIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by the binding precedence and restore the assessment order

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

Capital Gain. Therefore the assessment order of Ld. A.O dated 22.12.2016 cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus quash the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act as the action of Ld. PCIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by the binding precedence and restore the assessment order

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

Capital Gain. Therefore the assessment order of Ld. A.O dated 22.12.2016 cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus quash the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act as the action of Ld. PCIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by the binding precedence and restore the assessment order

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

Capital Gain. Therefore the assessment order of Ld. A.O dated 22.12.2016 cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus quash the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act as the action of Ld. PCIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by the binding precedence and restore the assessment order

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

capital gain and paper work has been done merely to give a colour of authenticity to the transaction and by creating a façade of legitimate transactions. The same is therefore chargeable to tax u/ s 68 of IT Act. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as under: "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books

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

capital gain and paper work has been done merely to give a colour of authenticity to the transaction and by creating a façade of legitimate transactions. The same is therefore chargeable to tax u/ s 68 of IT Act. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as under: "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books

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

Capital Gain made by the respective assessee(s) deserves to be allowed as they have entered into the transactions of purchase and sales duly supported by the documents which have not found to be incorrect. The conditions provided u/s 10(38) of the Act have been fulfilled by the assessee(s) namely Shivnarayan Sharma, Sapan Shaw, Prayank Jain, Govind Harinarayan

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

Gains to large number of persons in lieu of unaccounted cash. The basic objective of this racket is to convert black money into white without payment of Income Tax. The unaccounted cash of such persons [beneficiaries] is utilized to purchase shares of such companies at a very high artificially inflated market price. This practice is generally called Accommodation Entry Scam

RAJARAM PATIDAR,BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(4), HOSHANGABAD ROAD

Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Rajaram Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.112, Near Ram Lila 2(4), Maidan, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Ward No. 52-53, Bhopal Vs. Misrod (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Bkapp7594R Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

capital gain to department. Therefore, the assessee has not made any voluntary disclosure, in fact the assessee concealed taxable gain in original return. Ld. DR further relied upon certain decisions to contend that the Hon’ble Courts have upheld imposition of penalty

SHRI CDR, UDAI SINGH,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.791/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Cdr Udaisingh Bhopal Pan – Aglps – 7299C :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 3(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Bhopal Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 12.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

capital gains and penalty proceedings were initiated. In reply to show cause notice, the assessee has submitted as under :- “The return

SMT. USHADEVI MANSINGAHKA,BHILWADA vs. AYAKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Ushadevi Mansinghka Ito-1 बनाम/ Mansinghka House, Gangapur Khandwa Vs. Chouraha Bhilwada (Rajasthan) (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aeepm1258G Appellant By Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca Revenue By Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 20.03.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 23.12.2016 By Ito- Khandwa.

Capital Gain of Rs.94,93,723/- in A.Y. 2014-15. 9. The assessee in order to take the benefit of the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 filed a declaration u/s 183 of the Finance Act 2016 on Form No.1 and offered undisclosed income of Rs.95,00,000/- for A.Y. 2013-14 and accordingly paid the tax surcharge and penalty

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Capital Gain Deposit Scheme and that the due date of filing the return of income tax is not as specified in Section 139(1) but as specified in Section 139(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer declined the claim of the assessee and returned finding that the assessee has concealed her particulars of income and initiated proceedings for penalty

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

capital-gain of Rs. 3,10,21,341/- [3,29,84,651 (-) 19,63,310] vide assessment-order dated 30.03.2016. Subsequently, vide penalty

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

capital-gain of Rs. 3,10,21,341/- [3,29,84,651 (-) 19,63,310] vide assessment-order dated 30.03.2016. Subsequently, vide penalty

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

penalty was imposed on Shyam and not on Sunil. He submitted that the AO has also made a direct verification from Sunil u/s 133(6) for his own satisfaction, in response to which Sunil had confirmed the sale-transactions having been executed by him. Ld. AR strongly contended that the capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DEVI SINGH, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani

penalty was imposed qua the capital gain of Rs. 4,14,11,696/- assessed by AO in assessment-order. Since