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

Gain etc. It is pertinent to note that even as per the SEBI order there is no allegation against any individual shares holders who have Page 15 of 51 ITANo.470/Ind/2023 Sadhuram Balani purchased and sold the shares during this period from October 2012 to September 2015 but the entire investigation and finding are directed against some of the brokers

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee failed to establish the genuineness of rise of price of the shares within a short period

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee failed to establish the genuineness of rise of price of the shares within a short period

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies and assessee failed to establish the genuineness of rise of price of the shares within a short period

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

section 153C. In that view of matter, we are of the considered view that the AO is very much justified in framing assessment u/s 143(3). Therefore, there is no worth in the ground of assessee. The same is hereby dismissed. Page 15 of 24 Smt.Sarla Jain, Khadwa,vs.ITO,Ward 1, Khanndwa A. Y. : 2015-16 Ground

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers

SHRI GOPAL TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. in the identical situation were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 10. The Ld. AR relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT

SHRI GAURAV TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. in the identical situation were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 10. The Ld. AR relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT

SHRI VRINDAVAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. in the identical situation were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 10. The Ld. AR relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT

GOVARDHAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. in the identical situation were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 10. The Ld. AR relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT

AJAY KUMAR BALMUKUND JHAWAR HUF,SENDHWA vs. ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain under Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 7. The Ld. DR vehemently argued in support of the order passed by the authorities below. He is further

SMT. APARNA JHAWAR,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain under Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 7. The Ld. DR vehemently argued in support of the order passed by the authorities below. He is further

M/S. BALMUKUND DHANRAJ JHAWAR HUF,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain under Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 7. The Ld. DR vehemently argued in support of the order passed by the authorities below. He is further

HITESH KUMAR BINDAL,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 143(3) wherein the AO treated the shares of KCLIPL as what is called “penny stock” and capital gain declared by assessee therefrom as managed or non-genuine. Accordingly, the AO made addition u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 9,21,930/- and Rs. 19,42,723/- (equivalent to the full value of sale consideration received by assessee

HITESH KUMAR BINDAL,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 143(3) wherein the AO treated the shares of KCLIPL as what is called “penny stock” and capital gain declared by assessee therefrom as managed or non-genuine. Accordingly, the AO made addition u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 9,21,930/- and Rs. 19,42,723/- (equivalent to the full value of sale consideration received by assessee

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gains by the assessee, given the fact that the assessee failed to submit the most basic details pertaining the share transactions such as quantity purchased and sold, rate of purchase and sale, frequency of transactions, etc.?” 5. The brief fact leading to the case is this that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged, in the business

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gains by the assessee, given the fact that the assessee failed to submit the most basic details pertaining the share transactions such as quantity purchased and sold, rate of purchase and sale, frequency of transactions, etc.?” 5. The brief fact leading to the case is this that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged, in the business