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

5 Annapurna Maheshwari & Pradeep Maheshwari ITA No.315/Ind/2012, 252/Ind/2016 & 53/Ind/2014 provided by the assessee but she failed to get any favour from the Ld.A.O, and he treated the alleged Short Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.41,29,512/- as income from other sources and assessed total income of Rs.46,16,410/-. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld.CIT

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

Capital Gain Deposit Scheme Account. Thus, total investment as made by the appellant was to the tune of Rs 89,44,991/-. Thus, the appellant had properly claimed deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. 5.9.1] That as regards one more point raised by Pr. CIT that there is one more flat account Rs. 330000/- thus

SMT SHILPA DESAI ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Desai, Indore Pan – Abzpd 4926 A … Appellant Vs. Pcit-I, Indore … Respondent

section 139, before furnishing such return in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified. In the case of assessee, we find the assessee has duly deposited an amount of Rs 5,01,95,000/- in the Capital Gain Account scheme Account maintained with Bank of Baroda A/c No.05000100020462. Details of the same were also produced

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income tax act.\n4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming the impugned addition made by the Ld. AO grossly ignoring the various details and documentary evidences on record.”\nGround No. 2 to 4:\n4. By means of these grounds, the assessee has challenged

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

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

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

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, 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

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHUORSIYA,RAJGARH vs. THE PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

gain on compulsory acquisition 9,25,047 of land 3 On account of compulsory acquisition of House 3,42,358 4 On account of unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 12,86,090 1961 5 On account of net profit being estimated at 8% 4,12,148 Total 1,18,43,978 The assessee then preferred

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Capital Gain by routing it through paper companies who have no real business or activities and are created on papers for such type of sham transactions. The persons operating such paper companies complete the paper formalities but no real business/ activities are carried out by these companies. The bank accounts are opened and operated only to launder money and provide

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

184 Taxmann 483 (Delhi) (HC) : Asian Business Connection Private Limited 2. Intention of section 2(22)(e) as explained in CIT v. Mukundray Shah[2007] 160 Taxmann 276 (SC) : 3. CIT v Gayatri Chakraborty [2018] 94 taxmann.com 244 (Calcutta) (HC) 4. Chadrasekhar Maruti v ACIT [2016] 71 taxmann.com 239 (Mumbai ITAT) 5. M. Amareswara Rao v DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation to the assets acquired prior to OTS but there cannot be disallowance

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation to the assets acquired prior to OTS but there cannot be disallowance

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation to the assets acquired prior to OTS but there cannot be disallowance

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation to the assets acquired prior to OTS but there cannot be disallowance

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation to the assets acquired prior to OTS but there cannot be disallowance

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation to the assets acquired prior to OTS but there cannot be disallowance