SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

short ‘SEBI’). The optimum enquiry which the Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 Ld. A.O could have conducted has been done in the instant case with regard to the transaction giving rise to Long Term Capital Gain. 39. We also observe that this transaction of dealing the shares M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd is not solitary

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

short ‘SEBI’). The optimum enquiry which the Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 Ld. A.O could have conducted has been done in the instant case with regard to the transaction giving rise to Long Term Capital Gain. 39. We also observe that this transaction of dealing the shares M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd is not solitary

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

short ‘SEBI’). The optimum enquiry which the Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 Ld. A.O could have conducted has been done in the instant case with regard to the transaction giving rise to Long Term Capital Gain. 39. We also observe that this transaction of dealing the shares M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd is not solitary

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

short ‘SEBI’). The optimum enquiry which the Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 Ld. A.O could have conducted has been done in the instant case with regard to the transaction giving rise to Long Term Capital Gain. 39. We also observe that this transaction of dealing the shares M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd is not solitary

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

short ‘SEBI’). The optimum enquiry which the Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 Ld. A.O could have conducted has been done in the instant case with regard to the transaction giving rise to Long Term Capital Gain. 39. We also observe that this transaction of dealing the shares M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd is not solitary

SHRI CDR, UDAI SINGH,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.791/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Cdr Udaisingh Bhopal Pan – Aglps – 7299C :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 3(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Bhopal Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 12.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act on account of non disclosure of Short Term Capital Gain ofRs. 36,13,794/- in the original return of income filed by the assessee. A notice u/s

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

short period of some months by indulging in the transactions of what is called “penny stock”, the Ld. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) by order dated 29.12.2017 after making a total addition of Rs. 93,42,304/- on two counts, viz. (i) Ld. AO treated the capital gain of Rs. 90,69,199/- as bogus receipt u/s

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

short period of just 18 months by indulging in the transactions of what is called “penny stock”, the Ld. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) by order dated 15.12.2016 after making a total addition of Rs. 66,28,008/- on two counts, viz. (i) Ld. AO treated the capital gain of Rs. 66,28,161/- as bogus receipt u/s

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

271(1)(c), the pre-requisite condition for initiation of penalty is that there should concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, both the conditions are absent in this case, since whatever income was declared was accepted and assessee declared full details of short term capital gains in shares with each script, period of holding

SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rakesh Agrawal, Ito-4(4) बनाम/ 36, Teli Bakhal, Malharganj, Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Adzpa0506H Appellant By Shri Prakash Jain & Smt. Shreya Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 11.03.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 274/271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 27.03.2018 By Ito- 4(4), Indore. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without 2 Shri Rakesh Agrawal ITANo.478/Ind/2019 appreciating the fact that in the instant case there is no concealment of income as returned income and assessed income is same. In the assessment the Ld. AO merely assessed short term capital gain

ASHRAF KHAN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

short the ‘Act’) dated 05.06.2014 framed by ITO-2(2), Indore. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; Ashraf Kahn 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the income which is voluntarily offered by the appellant, before commencement of assessment proceedings, which is unjust, illegal and against the facts

SEEMA JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

Short term Capital Gain by taking into consideration the actual sale consideration received by the assessee. The fact of actual sale consideration received by the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer but the addition was made simply by applying the deeming provisions of section 50C. Therefore, in view of the various decisions as relied upon

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

DCIT3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI MANOJ DAGA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2010-11

Penalty is initiated u/s 271 (1)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Hence, from the assessment order it is evident that it is not the case where claim of bogus long term capital gain or short

SHRI ANIL KUMAR LILA (HUF),BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

penalty of Rs. 45,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7. We find that the assessee has shown long term and short term capital gain

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that