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

Capital Gain on sale of shares of Rs. 33,98,387/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and treating it as income from undisclosed sources by - (a) relying solely on the basis of statement of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt, recorded u/s 131 by A.D.I.T.(Inv)-4(3), Mumbai during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A

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

Capital Gain on sale of shares of Rs. 33,98,387/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and treating it as income from undisclosed sources by - (a) relying solely on the basis of statement of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt, recorded u/s 131 by A.D.I.T.(Inv)-4(3), Mumbai during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A

VIJAY RADHESHYAM NYATI HUF,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

Capital Gain on sale of shares of Rs. 33,98,387/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and treating it as income from undisclosed sources by - (a) relying solely on the basis of statement of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt, recorded u/s 131 by A.D.I.T.(Inv)-4(3), Mumbai during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A

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

surveys u/s 133A / enquires conducted by the department based upon which a report was prepared by the Investigation Wing stating the alleged modus operandi for non genuine Long Term Capital Gain

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

surveys u/s 133A / enquires conducted by the department based upon which a report was prepared by the Investigation Wing stating the alleged modus operandi for non genuine Long Term Capital Gain

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

capital gain. The AO observed that the department has conducted various searches u/s 132 and survey u/s 133A in the cases

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

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

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

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

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

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

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

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

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

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

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

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

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

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

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

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

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

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the department on various brokers of stock exchange and other companies where the investigation team came across various bogus transactions of providing accommodation entries to give benefit to various persons to convert their unaccounted cash Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, into accounted money

PRATAP BAJAJ,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1) INDORE, 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

survey u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the department on various brokers of stock exchange and other companies where the investigation team came across various bogus transactions of providing accommodation entries to give benefit to various persons to convert their unaccounted cash Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, into accounted money

M/S. SANJAY ONKARMAL AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(3) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

survey u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the department on various brokers of stock exchange and other companies where the investigation team came across various bogus transactions of providing accommodation entries to give benefit to various persons to convert their unaccounted cash into accounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. Ld. A.O also took statement

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1),R-5, INDORE

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

survey u/s 133A of the Act carried out by the department on various brokers of stock exchange and other companies where the investigation team came across various bogus transactions of providing accommodation entries to give benefit to various persons to convert their unaccounted cash into accounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. Ld. A.O also took statement

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner