VIJAY RADHESHYAM NYATI HUF,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

section 10(38) of the IT Act. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of stock and gradually rise its price many times from 500 to 1000 times. This is done through low volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price. Ld. D/R also submitted that the AO after discussing

SMT. MAMTA NYATI DHAMNOD DISTT. DHAR,DHAMNOD vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

section 10(38) of the IT Act. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of stock and gradually rise its price many times from 500 to 1000 times. This is done through low volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price. Ld. D/R also submitted that the AO after discussing

MANISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM NYATI ,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

section 10(38) of the IT Act. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of stock and gradually rise its price many times from 500 to 1000 times. This is done through low volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price. Ld. D/R also submitted that the AO after discussing

SMT VIJAYA NYATI, DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

section 10(38) of the IT Act. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of stock and gradually rise its price many times from 500 to 1000 times. This is done through low volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price. Ld. D/R also submitted that the AO after discussing

SHRI NILESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

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

Section 10(38) of the Act. However, the Ld. A.O was not convinced and observed that the figures available from the Annual Report shows that the market value of the equity share of the company on the stock exchange is unrealistic and not at par with the financials of the company. The price are manipulated and they

PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

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

Section 10(38) of the Act. However, the Ld. A.O was not convinced and observed that the figures available from the Annual Report shows that the market value of the equity share of the company on the stock exchange is unrealistic and not at par with the financials of the company. The price are manipulated and they

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

68 of the Act or deny claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act and therefore, the addition

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

section. The appellant has made claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) wherein, the permission certificate and completion certificate from the local authority have been obtained within cutoff date which is the most basis requirement to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10). 16. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the Revenue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

section. The appellant has made claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) wherein, the permission certificate and completion certificate from the local authority have been obtained within cutoff date which is the most basis requirement to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10). 16. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the Revenue

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" 5. In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law, as is required to be made out under Section 260A of the Act of 1961, that being the prerequisite of admission of the appeal. 6. The brief facts

SHRI HAKIMUDDIN KHAMBATI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4) RANGE-4, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 10(38) of the Act and made addition for sale consideration received from sale of shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd as unexplained cash credit u/s 68

SMT. MANISHA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 10(38) of the Act and made addition for sale consideration received from sale of shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd as unexplained cash credit u/s 68

PRATAP BAJAJ,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

10(38) of the Act is arbitrary and addition of sale proceeds of shares of PAL u/s 68 is against the provisions of Act. In the case in hand, the Id. AO has referred to SEBI enquiry against M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. However, we note that the said enquiry was regarding failure to comply with certain disclosure requirements and therefore

MANORAMA DEVI SHARMA,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

10(38) of the Act is arbitrary and addition of sale proceeds of shares of PAL u/s 68 is against the provisions of Act. In the case in hand, the Id. AO has referred to SEBI enquiry against M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. However, we note that the said enquiry was regarding failure to comply with certain disclosure requirements and therefore

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

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

section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38

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

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

section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38

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

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

section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38

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

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

section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38