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

short-term capital gain, long-term capital gain and income from other sources alongwith agricultural income

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

short-term capital gain instead of non-genuine gain. Ld. DR explained that short-term capital

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

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

Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus

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

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

Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus

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

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

Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus

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

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

Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus

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

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

Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus

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

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

Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus

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

short the ‘Act’) dated 28.12.2016 framed by ITO Rajgarh. The Assessee has raised the following revised grounds of appeal in ITANo.853/Ind/2017: “REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in In w, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in adopting the Fair Market Value of Land as on 01-04-1981 arbitrarily

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

term capital gain exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act is not genuine transaction. The SEBI has discussed the modus oprendi of these persons of rigging share price of particular scrip from Rs.2.54 in august 2012 to Rs.59.35 in April 9, 2013. He has relied upon the order of the AO as well as impugned order

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

term capital gain exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act is not genuine transaction. The SEBI has discussed the modus oprendi of these persons of rigging share price of particular scrip from Rs.2.54 in august 2012 to Rs.59.35 in April 9, 2013. He has relied upon the order of the AO as well as impugned order

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

term capital gain exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act is not genuine transaction. The SEBI has discussed the modus oprendi of these persons of rigging share price of particular scrip from Rs.2.54 in august 2012 to Rs.59.35 in April 9, 2013. He has relied upon the order of the AO as well as impugned order

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

short-term capital gain. The AO also noted that assessee and the co-owner might have received on-money

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

short-term capital gain. The AO also noted that assessee and the co-owner might have received on-money

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

short-term capital gain. The AO also noted that assessee and the co-owner might have received on-money

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

Appeal is allowed

term capital gain on sale of another land of village Kapalyakhedi) is\nbeing added to the Income of the assessee being from undisclosed capital gain.\nThe addition of Rs.2,31,917 is confirmed.\nThe assessee objects to addition of Short

NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 1,19,57,593/-, 1,21,96,669/- and Rs. 1,15,79,071/- respectively thereon, totaling to Rs. 3,57,33,333/-. It is observed from the contract notes of Xpro Securities and other share broking firm that the assessee immediately after/before earning capital gain, get short

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

Term Capital Gain of Rs. 28,92,830/- and in the case of Manorama Devi Sharma of Rs. 28,24,342/-arose from sale of equity shares of Sunrise Asian Limited ( in short