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

disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income

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

disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income

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

disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income

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

disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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

long term capital gain as claim but it is income from undisclosed source which is claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act which is not acceptable. Accordingly, the AO treated the capital gain of Rs. 16,12,698/- as income from undisclosed source and also disallowed

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

long term capital gain as claim but it is income from undisclosed source which is claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act which is not acceptable. Accordingly, the AO treated the capital gain of Rs. 16,12,698/- as income from undisclosed source and also disallowed

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

long term capital gain as claim but it is income from undisclosed source which is claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act which is not acceptable. Accordingly, the AO treated the capital gain of Rs. 16,12,698/- as income from undisclosed source and also disallowed

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

long-term capital gain and income from other sources alongwith agricultural income of Rs. 2,74,118/-. The assessee opted under new tax regime u/s 115BAC, computed tax liability of Rs. 22,536/- but claimed rebate of Rs. 22,536/- u/s 87A and effectively offered “Nil” tax. The return filed by assessee was processed by AO u/s 143(1) wherein

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

Long Term Capital Gain as “Penny Stock”, a term nowhere define under the Income Tax Act as any other law for the time being in force, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2 Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, 4. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

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

Long Term Capital Gain as “Penny Stock”, a term nowhere define under the Income Tax Act as any other law for the time being in force, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2 Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, 4. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming

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

disallowance of exemption of long term capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act amounting to Rs. 44,81,373/- in respect

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of claim of long term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to Rs. 77,57,559/- is the issue