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

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

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(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

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

gains arising from transfer of capital asset by way of distribution of capital asset on dissolution of firm or otherwise should be chargeable to tax as income of assessee. For application of this provision, thus, transfer of capital asset was necessary. In present case, there was no transfer of capital asset upon reconstitution of firm. All that happened was firm

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

gains arising from transfer of capital asset by way of distribution of capital asset on dissolution of firm or otherwise should be chargeable to tax as income of assessee. For application of this provision, thus, transfer of capital asset was necessary. In present case, there was no transfer of capital asset upon reconstitution of firm. All that happened was firm

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

reassessment proceedings since those notices were in their knowledge as they were served physically. However, show cause notices and order passed by the Ld Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Indore was never served physically to the appellant as a result of which the appellant was totally unaware of the fact that show cause notices had been issued and order

SHRI RAMESH MANGAL,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Pan : Abwpm2673E

capital gain of Rs.13,21,51,725/-. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of reassessment

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

capital gain was examined, the copy of sale agreement was very much part of the assessment record and the details of copy of agreement dated 14.02.2006 and other conditions were duly mentioned therein. It cannot be 10 Sheetal Garg presumed that the Ld.A.O did not examined the sale deed while completing the assessment. In our view there was no failure

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)

gain arising from transfer of such capital asset has to be charged only under the provisions of s.45 of the Act. We find merit in the argument of the AR that under provisions of clause (b) of section 153A, the Assessing Officer is required to assess or reassess

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)

gain arising from transfer of such capital asset has to be charged only under the provisions of s.45 of the Act. We find merit in the argument of the AR that under provisions of clause (b) of section 153A, the Assessing Officer is required to assess or reassess

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)

gain arising from transfer of such capital asset has to be charged only under the provisions of s.45 of the Act. We find merit in the argument of the AR that under provisions of clause (b) of section 153A, the Assessing Officer is required to assess or reassess

ROHIT KUMAR YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(5), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

capital gain is offered to tax by the mother of the assessee. Thus, it is clear from the assessment order that at the time of making protective addition there was no addition made by the AO on substantive basis in the hands of the mother of the assessee. Ld. DR has not disputed the fact that only a protective addition