ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

270/-. The assessee claimed long term capital gains of Rs. 77,57,559/-. Upon verification of ITD application by the department it was found that an investigation was carried out by DIT(Inv.), Kolkata on bogus claim of long term capital gain made by the various assessees through price rigging in ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

270/-. The assessee claimed long term capital gains of Rs. 77,57,559/-. Upon verification of ITD application by the department it was found that an investigation was carried out by DIT(Inv.), Kolkata on bogus claim of long term capital gain made by the various assessees through price rigging in ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

270/-. The assessee claimed long term capital gains of Rs. 77,57,559/-. Upon verification of ITD application by the department it was found that an investigation was carried out by DIT(Inv.), Kolkata on bogus claim of long term capital gain made by the various assessees through price rigging in ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

270/- u/s 27(1)(c) qua the addition so made. Being aggrieved by addition as well as penalty, the assessee filed separate appeals to the first appellate authority and succeeded. Now, the revenue has come in these appeals assailing the orders of first appellate authority. ITA No. 9/Ind/2020 - Quantum-appeal: 4. We first take up this appeal. The ground raised

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

270/- u/s 27(1)(c) qua the addition so made. Being aggrieved by addition as well as penalty, the assessee filed separate appeals to the first appellate authority and succeeded. Now, the revenue has come in these appeals assailing the orders of first appellate authority. ITA No. 9/Ind/2020 - Quantum-appeal: 4. We first take up this appeal. The ground raised

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

GENDALAL JADHAV,INDORE vs. ITO-1(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigendalal Jadhav, Ito 1(1) 168-G Palakhedi, Gandhi Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Nagar Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aphpj4675K Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2024 O R D E R

sections and the interpretation has to be made liberally.” 2. Ground no.1 is general in nature depending on outcome of specific issues raised by the assessee in ground no.2 & 3. 3. Ground no.2 is regarding disallowance of the claim of deduction on account of brokerage charges while computing the capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land. During

LATE SMT SUSHILA BISARYA, BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D 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 calculated by the assesse was not in order and accordingly issued a show cause notice u/s 263 on 1st January 2020. In response to the show cause notice Ld. Counsel for the assesse filed the reply and pointed out that the assesse has already expired on 30th December 2010 and even the assessment order passed

MOHAMMAD ZAHOOR QURESHI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-4(2), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Paresh M Joshi & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Zahoor Ito 4(2), Qureshi, Bhopal House No.956, Bagh Farhat Afza Gate Ke Andar, बनाम/ Gali No.2, Vs. Near Rajesh Cycle Aishbagh Stadium, Bhopal

Capital Gain and added to the total income of the assessee. 2.11 That assessee had purchased yet another piece of agriculture land for Rs. 47,65,865/- against market value of Rs. 1,32,00,000/- on 05.10.2013 and that by virtue of Section 56(2)(vii)(6) of the Act the assessee ought to have shown

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

Capital Gain. It was further stated that the above gold jewellery at Rs.40,25,479/- was also declared in income declaration scheme Rules 2016 and tax paid was Rs.12,07,644/-. Copy of ROI and form under IDS Rules 2016 was too enclosed which are at pages 55 to 58 of paper book Vol.I. On page 56 of paper book