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

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

penny stock”, a term nowhere define under the Income Tax Act and under any other law for the time being in force, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in case of Shikha Dhawan (Appeal No.ITA

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

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

penny stock”, a term nowhere define under the Income Tax Act and under any other law for the time being in force, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in case of Shikha Dhawan (Appeal No.ITA

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

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

penny stock”, a term nowhere define under the Income Tax Act and under any other law for the time being in force, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in case of Shikha Dhawan (Appeal No.ITA

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

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

penny stock”, a term nowhere define under the Income Tax Act and under any other law for the time being in force, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in case of Shikha Dhawan (Appeal No.ITA

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

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

penny stock”, a term nowhere define under the Income Tax Act and under any other law for the time being in force, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in case of Shikha Dhawan (Appeal No.ITA

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

penny stock. Due to subsequent corporate Page 8 of 17 ITA Nos.215 & others Ind/2019 Sheela Agarwal and Ankur Agarwal Page 9 of 17 announcement and development/events the even 500 shares have increased to 50000 shares as a result of bonus in the ratio of 9:1 thereafter split in the ratio of 10:1. The acquisition cost in the hands

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

penny stock. Due to subsequent corporate Page 8 of 17 ITA Nos.215 & others Ind/2019 Sheela Agarwal and Ankur Agarwal Page 9 of 17 announcement and development/events the even 500 shares have increased to 50000 shares as a result of bonus in the ratio of 9:1 thereafter split in the ratio of 10:1. The acquisition cost in the hands

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

penny stock. Due to subsequent corporate Page 8 of 17 ITA Nos.215 & others Ind/2019 Sheela Agarwal and Ankur Agarwal Page 9 of 17 announcement and development/events the even 500 shares have increased to 50000 shares as a result of bonus in the ratio of 9:1 thereafter split in the ratio of 10:1. The acquisition cost in the hands

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

penny stock company and\ninvolved in providing entries to its beneficiaries.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the\naddition of Rs.1,47,16,146/- u/s 68 as bogus sundry creditors while the\nissue required proper verification.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

penny stock company and\ninvolved in providing entries to its beneficiaries.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the\naddition of Rs.1,47,16,146/- u/s 68 as bogus sundry creditors while the\nissue required proper verification.\n4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

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

penny stock scrips and particularly on the basis of that scrips the revenue has proceeded against the assessee and ultimately disallowed

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

penny stock scrips and particularly on the basis of that scrips the revenue has proceeded against the assessee and ultimately disallowed

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

penny stock scrips and particularly on the basis of that scrips the revenue has proceeded against the assessee and ultimately disallowed

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

penny stock scrips and particularly on the basis of that scrips the revenue has proceeded against the assessee and ultimately disallowed

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

penny stock scrips and particularly on the basis of that scrips the revenue has proceeded against the assessee and ultimately disallowed

SHRI ANIRUDHA NYATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari Ayushi Nyati (ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gain arising from sale of equity shares of M/s. Sun Rise Asian Ltd. (listed on Bombay Stock Exchange) treating it income from undisclosed sources. ITA Nos.483&484/Ind/2019 Aniruddha Nyati vs. ITO Asst.Years –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 2 – 3. ITA No. 483/Ind/2019

SHRI ANIRUDHA NYATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari Ayushi Nyati (ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

disallowance of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gain arising from sale of equity shares of M/s. Sun Rise Asian Ltd. (listed on Bombay Stock Exchange) treating it income from undisclosed sources. ITA Nos.483&484/Ind/2019 Aniruddha Nyati vs. ITO Asst.Years –2014-15 & 2015-16 - 2 – 3. ITA No. 483/Ind/2019

PAWAN KUMAR 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 before us. The said claim of the assessee has been rejected by both the parties below and hence the appeal before us. 3. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also