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

Appeal is allowed

undisclosed capital gain.\nThe addition of Rs.2,31,917 is confirmed.\nThe assessee objects to addition of Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.65,24,628\nin respect of sale of land situated at village Palakhedi. It reveals that assessee\nhas claimed exempt income

ACIT (CENTRAL) 1 INDORE , INDORE vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

undisclosed income and the same was covered by the additional income of Rs.3,60,00,000/- shown by the assessee in his return of income for the relevant assessment year. Since as per the assessee, no formal documents were executed for purchase and sale, the details of sellers and buyers could not be furnished. Ld. AO has stated that

JCIT OSD (CENTRAL)-1, RATLAM vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

undisclosed income and the same was covered by the additional income of Rs.3,60,00,000/- shown by the assessee in his return of income for the relevant assessment year. Since as per the assessee, no formal documents were executed for purchase and sale, the details of sellers and buyers could not be furnished. Ld. AO has stated that

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)

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers

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)

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers

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)

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers

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

capital gain disclosed by the assessee is an income from undisclosed source and made addition of the same along with

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

capital gain disclosed by the assessee is an income from undisclosed source and made addition of the same along with

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

capital gain disclosed by the assessee is an income from undisclosed source and made addition of the same along with

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.23,25,000/- on the said alleged penny stock was not accepted and added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act on the alleged grounds of income from undisclosed

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.23,25,000/- on the said alleged penny stock was not accepted and added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act on the alleged grounds of income from undisclosed

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.23,25,000/- on the said alleged penny stock was not accepted and added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act on the alleged grounds of income from undisclosed

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.23,25,000/- on the said alleged penny stock was not accepted and added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act on the alleged grounds of income from undisclosed

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.23,25,000/- on the said alleged penny stock was not accepted and added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act on the alleged grounds of income from undisclosed

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

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

Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus business loss through trading of shares of penny stocks ……………” From the above, following is made out – a. Ld. AO has made a very general and vague reference to conduct of search by the Department by using the term ‘various’ for all the stakeholders involved in the stock market operations / transactions

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

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

Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus business loss through trading of shares of penny stocks ……………” From the above, following is made out – a. Ld. AO has made a very general and vague reference to conduct of search by the Department by using the term ‘various’ for all the stakeholders involved in the stock market operations / transactions

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

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

Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus business loss through trading of shares of penny stocks ……………” From the above, following is made out – a. Ld. AO has made a very general and vague reference to conduct of search by the Department by using the term ‘various’ for all the stakeholders involved in the stock market operations / transactions

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

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

Gains and bogus Short Term Capital Loss/ bogus business loss through trading of shares of penny stocks ……………” From the above, following is made out – a. Ld. AO has made a very general and vague reference to conduct of search by the Department by using the term ‘various’ for all the stakeholders involved in the stock market operations / transactions