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

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

Long Term Capital Gain, bogus Short Term Capital 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

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, bogus Short Term Capital 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

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, bogus Short Term Capital 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

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, bogus Short Term Capital 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

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

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Long Term Capital Gain from sale of equity shares of M/s. Goenka business & Finance Ltd. The case was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently for carrying 4 Smt. Nilima Kothari out the reassessment

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Long-Term Capital gains have been reflected on other scrips also. The Balance Sheet of the assessee reveals that it has ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 5 – year-end investment in shares for Rs.93.44 Lacs and another investment of Rs.103.50 Lacs in share warrants. The perusal of the Balance Sheet would show that

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Long-Term Capital gains have been reflected on other scrips also. The Balance Sheet of the assessee reveals that it has ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 5 – year-end investment in shares for Rs.93.44 Lacs and another investment of Rs.103.50 Lacs in share warrants. The perusal of the Balance Sheet would show that

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Long-Term Capital gains have been reflected on other scrips also. The Balance Sheet of the assessee reveals that it has ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 5 – year-end investment in shares for Rs.93.44 Lacs and another investment of Rs.103.50 Lacs in share warrants. The perusal of the Balance Sheet would show that

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Long-Term Capital gains have been reflected on other scrips also. The Balance Sheet of the assessee reveals that it has ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 5 – year-end investment in shares for Rs.93.44 Lacs and another investment of Rs.103.50 Lacs in share warrants. The perusal of the Balance Sheet would show that

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)

long-term capital gain. According to the Assessing Officer, the on-money of Rs.2,08,00,000/- received by the assessee is not a normal receipt on sale of capital asset and therefore, no claim under any section of the Income Tax Act is allowable against this receipt. According to the Assessing Officer, since the said amount was admitted only

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)

long-term capital gain. According to the Assessing Officer, the on-money of Rs.2,08,00,000/- received by the assessee is not a normal receipt on sale of capital asset and therefore, no claim under any section of the Income Tax Act is allowable against this receipt. According to the Assessing Officer, since the said amount was admitted only

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)

long-term capital gain. According to the Assessing Officer, the on-money of Rs.2,08,00,000/- received by the assessee is not a normal receipt on sale of capital asset and therefore, no claim under any section of the Income Tax Act is allowable against this receipt. According to the Assessing Officer, since the said amount was admitted only

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

long-term capital gain arising on sale of such land was also not eligible to tax. Hence, it becomes crystal clear that the Assessing Officer raised detailed and extensive queries during the course of reassessment

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

long-term capital gain arising on sale of such land was also not eligible to tax. Hence, it becomes crystal clear that the Assessing Officer raised detailed and extensive queries during the course of reassessment

NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

gain of Rs.3,57,33,333/- there was no transaction by the assesse resulting loss which shows that the alleged transactions of derivative or fictitious entries of loss are to avoid the tax on the long term capital earned by the assesse from the transactions of sale of long term capital/lands. He has relied upon the impugned order

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

term 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

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanations furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act in respect of sale of two immovable properties and computed long-term capital gain