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

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

Section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206

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

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

Section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206

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

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

Section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206

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 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206

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

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

Section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206

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 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure in respect of estimation of commission expense made by the Ld. AO @5% on the amount of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.83,94,034 034. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and applicable law, Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Section 14 of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961, the heads of income are salaries, income from house\nHarpreet Kaur\nITA No. 730/Ind/2024 – AY 2009-10\nproperty, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains\nand income from other sources, that is to say, that the money, bullion,\netc., found, of which the assessee is the owner, for which there

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

206 – “Even this is not the case of the Ld. CIT that certain evidences were overlooked which were very much on record or in the knowledge of the AO. Even this is not the case of Ld. CIT that certain new facts or evidences were brought to the notice of the Revenue Department which were having a direct impact

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

capital gain of Rs.32.79,066/- declared by the\nassessee and claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act is bogus, therefore, there\nis live nexus between the information available and the satisfaction recorded\nand, accordingly, Ld. CIT-DR submit that the case of the assessee was\nrightly reopened and prayed accordingly.\nPage 19 of 49\nSantosh Rathore\nITA No. 451/Ind/2024

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. ARIHANT CAPITAL MARKETS LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

capital requirement/Stock Exchange Obligations”. From the perusal of the security clause mentioned on the same page it is apparent that the limit taken from banbk appellant. The overdraft facility taken by the appellant is utilised only for pay outs on account of positions held by th clients to stock exchange. The appellants interest cost on overdraft against FDs is thus

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

206. While quashing the order issued ITA Nos.20&21/Ind/2022 Mojilal Rajput vs. ITO&PCIT Asst. Year–2009-10 - 10 – under Section 263 of the Act the Coordinate Bench was pleased to observe as follows: “Even this is not the case of the Ld. CIT that certain evidences were overlooked which were very much on record or in the knowledge

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

206. While quashing the order issued ITA Nos.20&21/Ind/2022 Mojilal Rajput vs. ITO&PCIT Asst. Year–2009-10 - 10 – under Section 263 of the Act the Coordinate Bench was pleased to observe as follows: “Even this is not the case of the Ld. CIT that certain evidences were overlooked which were very much on record or in the knowledge

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

gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946 , or after the 31st day of March, 1948 , and before the 1st day of April, 1956 . Explanation 2.-- The expression" accumulated profits" in sub- clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those sub- clauses

SACHCHIDANAND TRIPATHI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO 5(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15 Sachchidanand Tripati Ito 5(2) Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aampt3788N Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Bhopal Dated 01.05.2019 Which Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 26.05.2017 Framed By Ito-5(2) Bhopal.

gain. Assessee is maintaining share trading account with Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. Total sales made on delivery based transaction amounting to Rs.3,13,81410/-. Assessee has not disputed this figure of sale turnover of share trading of delivery based transaction but only claimed before ld. AO that these transaction were in the nature of purchase and sale of shares

KAILASHCHANDRA KHANDELWAL,SENDHWA vs. PR. CIT -2, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

206 c. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymers – [2010] 194 Taxman 57 d. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashish Rajpal – [2009] 320 ITR 674 e. Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Anil Shah – [2007] 162 Taxman 39 16. Application of mind by Ld. AO - In the instant

DY. CIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNIL SHARE & STOCK (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, ground number 2 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

206, Rajani (Appellant) Vs Bhawan, M.G. Road, Indore PAN: AAFCS5114D (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Satnam Singh Sheetal, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 10-10-2022 Date of pronouncement : 13 -12-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2005-06, arises from order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

206 to 382 of the paper book. That, as per the Assessing Officer the complete address were not furnished and also a copy of the receipt for receiving the donation was also not furnished and therefore the learned Assessing Officer, asked the assessee to furnish the aforesaid details on 17.03.2016 otherwise the assessment shall be completed as per provision

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

206 to 382 of the paper book. That, as per the Assessing Officer the complete address were not furnished and also a copy of the receipt for receiving the donation was also not furnished and therefore the learned Assessing Officer, asked the assessee to furnish the aforesaid details on 17.03.2016 otherwise the assessment shall be completed as per provision