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 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. b. Ld. AO failed to make reference to any specific search/survey having a direct nexus with

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

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

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. b. Ld. AO failed to make reference to any specific search/survey having a direct nexus with

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

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

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. b. Ld. AO failed to make reference to any specific search/survey having a direct nexus with

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

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

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. b. Ld. AO failed to make reference to any specific search/survey having a direct nexus with

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

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

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. b. Ld. AO failed to make reference to any specific search/survey having a direct nexus with

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF),UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BPL-C(91)(1), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

penny stock company has not been rigged up. The appellant failed to establish that exit providers are not bogus. The appellant grossly failed to prove that the statements given by the entry operators are not correct. Further, during the appellate proceeding, the Appellant could not controvert any of the findings made by the AO in the assessment order with

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BPL-C-(91)(1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

penny stock company has not been rigged up. The appellant failed to establish that exit providers are not bogus. The appellant grossly failed to prove that the statements given by the entry operators are not correct. Further, during the appellate proceeding, the Appellant could not controvert any of the findings made by the AO in the assessment order with

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penny stock. However, it was nowhere admitted that the gains earned by the assessee-huf were also tainted. The Karta of assessee-huf also did not admit the same. Therefore, this plea is misplaced. Similarly, the plea that certain additions of unaccounted commission has been made in the hands of M/s CSL which has been accepted, would also not carry

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penny stock. However, it was nowhere admitted that the gains earned by the assessee-huf were also tainted. The Karta of assessee-huf also did not admit the same. Therefore, this plea is misplaced. Similarly, the plea that certain additions of unaccounted commission has been made in the hands of M/s CSL which has been accepted, would also not carry

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penny stock. However, it was nowhere admitted that the gains earned by the assessee-huf were also tainted. The Karta of assessee-huf also did not admit the same. Therefore, this plea is misplaced. Similarly, the plea that certain additions of unaccounted commission has been made in the hands of M/s CSL which has been accepted, would also not carry

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penny stock. However, it was nowhere admitted that the gains earned by the assessee-huf were also tainted. The Karta of assessee-huf also did not admit the same. Therefore, this plea is misplaced. Similarly, the plea that certain additions of unaccounted commission has been made in the hands of M/s CSL which has been accepted, would also not carry

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

penny stock transactions and SLP was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above matter. Hence, the ground of appeal is without any merit and hence the same is dismissed. 8.6 Vide Ground No. 8, the appellant has submitted that Ld. AO erred by not serving the order for rectification request made by the assessee for mistake apparent

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

penny stock by M/s Indian\nInfotech and Software Limited during the financial year 2012-13 for Rs.\n32,79,066/- which is not correct. The Ld.AR submit that the assessee has\nearned long term capital from sale of two companies namely M/s Indian\nInfotech and Software Limited Rs.18,91,815/- and Oasis Cine\nCommunication Ltd. Rs.13,87,251/. He further

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

Penny Stock. There being no evidence about the cash transfer, either at the time of purchase or at the time of sale of share by the appellant, treatment of LTCG as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act and confirmation thereof by Ld. CIT(A) is wholly unjustified, improper and bad in law. 06) Section 68: Issue: Burden

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

penny stock transactions. Therefore, it appears that this company is also involved in accommodative transactions. The balance sheet of the assessee show in opening balance of Rs. 10,73,677/- and closing balance of Rs. 57,67,284/-. Accordingly, the unsecured loan received from this company is also suspicious and needs to be further investigated. Since, majority of the creditors

PUMARTH CREDIT CAPITAL LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT 4 (1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pumarth Credit Capital Ltd. Acit-4(1), 28/29, Vimla Mahal, Indore 755, Peddar Road, बनाम/ Opp. Jaslok Hospital, Vs. Mumbai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aabcp8823E Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2025

reassessment proceedings commenced after four years from the end of relevant assessment year is not sustainable under the law. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the NFAC has erred in law or on facts upholding addition of Rs 1,76,77,125/- by alleging that the assessee had effected reversal trade and has shown non-genuine

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

stock register. 1(d). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming an addition to the extent of Rs.38,47,800/- firstly, by presuming that the appellant had effected out of books sales in respect of traded goods of a sum of Rs.2,56,52,000/- and secondly

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

stock register. 1(d). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming an addition to the extent of Rs.38,47,800/- firstly, by presuming that the appellant had effected out of books sales in respect of traded goods of a sum of Rs.2,56,52,000/- and secondly