SMT. MAMTA NYATI DHAMNOD DISTT. DHAR,DHAMNOD vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

section 10(38) of the IT Act. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of stock and gradually rise its price many times from 500 to 1000 times. This is done through low volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price. Ld. D/R also submitted that the AO after discussing the modus

KUMARI AYUSHI NYATI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

section 10(38) of the IT Act. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of stock and gradually rise its price many times from 500 to 1000 times. This is done through low volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price. Ld. D/R also submitted that the AO after discussing the modus

VIJAY RADHESHYAM NYATI HUF,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

section 10(38) of the IT Act. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of stock and gradually rise its price many times from 500 to 1000 times. This is done through low volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price. Ld. D/R also submitted that the AO after discussing the modus

PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

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

29. It is further submitted that the appellant has sold the shares of a listed company after holding the same for a period of more than one year, the sales were affected through recognized exchange and through a registered broker and STT was paid on such sale transactions. Thus all the conditions of section 10(38) of the Act were

SHRI NILESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

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

29. It is further submitted that the appellant has sold the shares of a listed company after holding the same for a period of more than one year, the sales were affected through recognized exchange and through a registered broker and STT was paid on such sale transactions. Thus all the conditions of section 10(38) of the Act were

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

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29

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

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29

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

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29

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

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29

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

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29

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

section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 capital gain on transfer of shares, after holding for more than 12 months, is exempted u/s 10(38). The assessee has declared to have earned a whopping capital gain of Rs. 64,58,168/- on the basis of a meagre investment of Rs. 1,77,192/- and the relevant shares

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

29- 11-2014 declaring total income at Rs 11,05,320/- which consists of income from House Property, Business income, Capital gain and Income from Other sources. In the said computation of total income, the appellant has offered long term capital gain of Rs 193656/- from sale of plot of land and the working of the same is shown

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

29-10-2015, had specifically made a mention of the MOD executed between Shri Dipesh Khandelwal, Shri R K Tekriwal and other tenant/sub- tenants. A copy of the said Notice is being submitted herewith for your kind perusal and ready reference, as Annexure C-5.00. 18.00 In response to the said Notice, Shri R K Tekriwal, vide his letter dated

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

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

29,555/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10

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

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

29,555/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10

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

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

29,555/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10

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

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

29,555/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10

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

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

29,555/- under section 68, whereas section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10