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

SMT VIJAYA NYATI, 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

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

MANISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM NYATI ,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

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

22,859/- made by the AO u/s 68 on account of alleged commission on surmises and conjectures. The said addition being wrong and uncalled for is prayed to be deleted. Ayush Jain & Ors ITA No.616, 617/Ind/2019 & 293&294/Ind/2020 3.The order passed by the AO without following the principle of natural justice is bad in law and is prayed

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

22,859/- made by the AO u/s 68 on account of alleged commission on surmises and conjectures. The said addition being wrong and uncalled for is prayed to be deleted. Ayush Jain & Ors ITA No.616, 617/Ind/2019 & 293&294/Ind/2020 3.The order passed by the AO without following the principle of natural justice is bad in law and is prayed

KANHAIYA LAL PANCHAL,RATLAM vs. BPL-W-(91)(95), RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2024-25 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Bpl-W-(91)(95) 1, Jadwasa Kala, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqrpp0055D Assessee By Shri Kaide Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

capital gain and income from other sources alongwith agricultural income of Rs. 2,74,118/-. The assessee opted under new tax regime u/s 115BAC, computed tax liability of Rs. 22,536/- but claimed rebate of Rs. 22,536/- u/s 87A and effectively offered “Nil” tax. The return filed by assessee was processed by AO u/s 143(1) wherein

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

22. However whether the alleged income is to be treated as short term capital gain or long term capital gain still needs to be looked into. For the purpose of claiming the exemption for Long Term Capital Gain the listed equity shares should be held by the assessee for more than 12 months. From perusal of facts we observe that

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

22. However whether the alleged income is to be treated as short term capital gain or long term capital gain still needs to be looked into. For the purpose of claiming the exemption for Long Term Capital Gain the listed equity shares should be held by the assessee for more than 12 months. From perusal of facts we observe that

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

22. However whether the alleged income is to be treated as short term capital gain or long term capital gain still needs to be looked into. For the purpose of claiming the exemption for Long Term Capital Gain the listed equity shares should be held by the assessee for more than 12 months. From perusal of facts we observe that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. DR. SHRI RAJEEV CHAUDHARY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Pan : Abkpc5729K Assistant Commissioner Of V/S Dr.Rajeev Choudhary Income Tax, 1, Shiv Vilas Palace Circle-2(1), Indore Indore

capital gain but as regards the alleged income of Rs.1,18,57,282/-, we find merit in the finding of Ld. AO and are inclined to hold that the alleged income of Rs.1,18,57,282/- is purely income from business from purchase/sale of shares and therefore, is to be taxed as a business income. We, therefore, allow the grounds

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 54F is not utilized in construction of residential house within period of 3 years, it will be charged to capital gains in year in which period of 3 years expires, however, exemption already granted shall not be denied. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the hardship should be avoided. The Ld. A.R. has cited a decision in the case

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

Section 2(29B). We may also state here that in the assessee's transaction of LTCG, the sale consideration received is Rs.7,82,75,591 pursuant to sale of Listed Scripts of Sunrise between 19.09.2013 - 25.03.2014 and the amount of capital gain as computed by the assessee is Rs.7,51,07,591/- after taking into consideration the cost of purchases

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

Section 2(22) in The Income- Tax Act, 1995 (22) " dividend" includes- (a) any distribution by a company of accumulated profits, whether capitalised or not, if such distribution entails the release by the company to its shareholders of all or any part of the assets of the company; (b) any distribution to its shareholders by a company of debentures, debenture

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

22 Shaligram Borad Indore. To arrive at the capital gain liable to tax, assesse has claimed selling expenses, exemption u/s 54F(1) of the Act for investment in new house and exemption u/s 54F(4) towards deposit in capital gain Deposits Scheme. The case of the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act after making certain additions/disallowance

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

capital gain as long- term on the footing that the sub-tenancy right was held for more than 3 years as required by section 2(29B) of the act. 5. During assessment-proceeding, when the Ld. AO asked the assessee to provide details and documents of the sub-tenancy right, the assessee submitted a detailed reply on 22.12.2017, which

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

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

section 2(47) of the Act at the time of demolition of part of the house of the assessee and accordingly, no capital gain is taxable in the hands of the assessee in respect of demolition of part of his house. So far as the compulsory acquisition of plot area of 250 Sq Fts is concerned, we find that

SARITA BAGDI ,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD-4(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

22 Smt. Sarita Bagdi consideration the assessee claimed long term capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/ - on a scrip named Shri Nidhi Trading Limited. On scrutinizing the complete transaction the total sale value came to Rs.36,72,631/- and total purchase value came to Rs.2,07,460/-. The assessee accordingly showed capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/-. The Assessing Officer