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

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

unexplained cash credit towards Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares on stock exchange, by holding it as bogus

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

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

unexplained cash credit towards Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares on stock exchange, by holding it as bogus

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

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

unexplained cash credit towards Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares on stock exchange, by holding it as bogus

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

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

unexplained cash credit towards Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares on stock exchange, by holding it as 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

unexplained cash credit towards Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares on stock exchange, by holding it as bogus

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

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

capital gain at\nRs. Nil (Para 3 of assessment-order). At the same time, the AO made working\nof cash availability with assessee at Rs.4,60,000/- [by giving credit of the\nHarpreet Kaur\nITA No. 730/Ind/2024 – AY 2009-10\nsale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/- shown by registered sale-deed (+) estimated cash of Rs.30,000/- available with assessee from

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act when the assessee has been able to discharge its primary onus effectively and satisfactorily. The Revenue could not establish live link between cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act when the assessee has been able to discharge its primary onus effectively and satisfactorily. The Revenue could not establish live link between cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act when the assessee has been able to discharge its primary onus effectively and satisfactorily. The Revenue could not establish live link between cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act when the assessee has been able to discharge its primary onus effectively and satisfactorily. The Revenue could not establish live link between cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain

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

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act when the assessee has been able to discharge its primary onus effectively and satisfactorily. The Revenue could not establish live link between cash deposited by the assessee in form of long term capital gain

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

unexplained and have to be considered as short term capital gains. 8.4 Further in case of Smt. Annapurna Maheshwari v. ACIT (2019 34 ITJ 139 (Trib. – Indore) in similar circumstances it was held by jurisdictional Indore Bench that where the Appellant has held the shares in demat account for a period less than one year the same have

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

capital gains from the sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited is bogus, and is an accommodation entry taken for the purposes of converting his own black money into white. Therefore, the trade value of Rs. 2,09,239/- is an unexplained cash credit

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

capital gains from the sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Limited is bogus, and is an accommodation entry taken for the purposes of converting his own black money into white. Therefore, the trade value of Rs. 2,09,239/- is an unexplained cash credit

RAJARAM PATIDAR,BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(4), HOSHANGABAD ROAD

Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Rajaram Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.112, Near Ram Lila 2(4), Maidan, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Ward No. 52-53, Bhopal Vs. Misrod (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Bkapp7594R Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

capital gain from sale of properties, (ii) Rs. 1,06,772/- on account of undisclosed interest income and (ii) Rs. 55,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash-credit

THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD., INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2011-12

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act for the unsecured loan taken from the above referred two lender companies totalling to Rs. 1,44,75,000/- and we also direct the revenue authorities to allow the claim of interest expenditure of Rs.61,58,897/-. We thus dismiss Ground No. 1 & 2 of Revenue’s Appeal in the case

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

credit received in the bank account could not be held to be unexplained unless it was established that assessee’s own money was routed in his bank account in the garb of Capital gains. 6.14 We find that on identical set of facts, similar addition made by revenue was deleted by coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case