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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

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

150/- and agricultural income of Rs. 1,20,000/- which was assessed. In the return so filed, the assessee declared her 1/3rd share in taxable long-term capital gain at Rs. 1,86,107/- on sale of an agricultural land jointly owned by three persons i.e. assessee and other two co-owners. The said land was sold for a total

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

capital gain. He as referred to form 35 paced at page no.320 to 322 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee raised grounds regarding adopting of fair market value as on 01.04.1981. Therefore, the issue of determination of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 was involved in the appeal filed by the assessee before

PRATAP BAJAJ,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 13. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify of any grounds before final date of hearing. Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, Following grounds of appeal in ITANo.489/Ind/2019 (Shri Pratap Bajaj):- 1. That

MANORAMA DEVI SHARMA,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 13. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify of any grounds before final date of hearing. Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, Following grounds of appeal in ITANo.489/Ind/2019 (Shri Pratap Bajaj):- 1. That

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

150 times, the genuineness of the purchase and sale of those shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering has been doubted by the Ld. AO particularly since that purchase of shares were made through off market transaction. Ultimately relying upon the report of the Investigation Team in respect of bogus transaction of capital gain, the Ld. AO rejected the claim made

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

150 times, the genuineness of the purchase and sale of those shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering has been doubted by the Ld. AO particularly since that purchase of shares were made through off market transaction. Ultimately relying upon the report of the Investigation Team in respect of bogus transaction of capital gain, the Ld. AO rejected the claim made

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

150 times, the genuineness of the purchase and sale of those shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering has been doubted by the Ld. AO particularly since that purchase of shares were made through off market transaction. Ultimately relying upon the report of the Investigation Team in respect of bogus transaction of capital gain, the Ld. AO rejected the claim made

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16 .08.2023

Capital Gain, interest income during the FY 2009-10. It is also noticed that the assessee had not filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, which is on due on 31/07/2010. Assessee has filed his return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the 1.T. Act, on 30/08/2017 vide acknowledgement

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

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

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

150 dated 4/7/2017, Asst Year 2016-17 Madam In compliance to your above notice assessee society begs to submit that 1) That the unsecured loan as shown in the return of income are genuine and from disclosed sources. This is further to submit that assessee society is a Co-operative society engaged in the business of PDS. Samarthan Mulya

BADAM SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO 4(1) , BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibadam Singh, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 392 Gram Palasi, 4(1), Vs. New Jail Road, Bhopal Karond, Bhopal (Pan: Drhps5664B) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

150/-. Addition of Rs.54,31,180/- was made on account of Long Term Capital Gain (Rs.31,510/- + Rs.54,31,180/-). That the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order” and the same is dated 25.12.2019. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited