HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

capital gain. At the very outset, learned counsel\ncandidly conceded that the recovery of the amount and the liability of its being\ntreated as undisclosed income cannot be disputed. He confined his arguments\nonly to the question as to under what head of income this undisclosed income\nis liable to be taxed. On this point, learned counsel urged that

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

capital gain was taxable. Accordingly, the AO made addition\nof taxable gain at Rs.67,56,545/- [Rs.2,31,917/- from lands situated at Village - Kapalyakhedi (+) Rs.65,24,628/- from lands situated at Village - Palakhedi] and re-assessed total income

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

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

addition of Rs. 88,78,365/ - as made to the total income of the appellant on account of long-term capital gain

KANHAIYA LAL PANCHAL,RATLAM vs. BPL-W-(91)(95), RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2024-25 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Bpl-W-(91)(95) 1, Jadwasa Kala, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqrpp0055D Assessee By Shri Kaide Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

capital gains taxable under section 111A. The AR submitted that the decision rendered by the CIT(A) in that case is directly applicable to the present appeal, and that consistency in application of law must be maintained in favour of the assessee. 4.7 Additionally, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in The Chamber

BRIJ MOHAN DAS DEVI PRASAD,SEHORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2 BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S.Brij Mohandas Devi Acit/Dcit, Prasad, Central Circle 2, बनाम/ House No. 62, Ward No.18, Bhopal Station Road, Vs. Sehore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadfb3526F Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ca & Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Ca, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

capital account and without showing the same as additional income. Therefore, the additional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account. Thus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of undisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) during search. Also, the appellant has accepted the addition made by the AO amounting

JCIT OSD (CENTRAL)-1, RATLAM vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

capital gain on sale of land. 51. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) stated that Ld. AO was justified in holding that the assessee had purchased 65000 sq. ft. land in Indore @Rs.80/- per sq. ft. by making investment of Rs.52,00,000/-. However, the Ld. CIT(A) also found that

ACIT (CENTRAL) 1 INDORE , INDORE vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

capital gain on sale of land. 51. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) stated that Ld. AO was justified in holding that the assessee had purchased 65000 sq. ft. land in Indore @Rs.80/- per sq. ft. by making investment of Rs.52,00,000/-. However, the Ld. CIT(A) also found that

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

income" stands duly\nexamined and accepted by AO.\n\n12. However, Ld. AR submitted, while passing assessment-order the AO\nhas gone beyond the scope of Limited Scrutiny and varied/denied the claim\nof costs/exemption made by assessee in computing taxable gain without\nobtaining approval from PCIT and therefore the higher capital gain assessed\nby AO at Rs.2

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

income of Rs. 4,64,460/-. In the return so filed, the assessee declared capital gain from sale of an agricultural land after claiming exemption u/s 54B. The case of assessee was subjected to scrutiny-assessment due to large claim of exemption. During proceedings, the AO found that the assessee, jointly with his two brothers, sold an agricultural land situated

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

income. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) accepted the capital gain as genuine but at the same time held the long-term capital gain Page 26 of 37 DCIT v. Ravi Arora Assessment year 2011-12 as short-term capital gain based on holding period. Thus, while the addition

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)

addition in the assessee’s income on account of short-term capital gain. The AO also noted that assessee and the co-owner

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)

addition in the assessee’s income on account of short-term capital gain. The AO also noted that assessee and the co-owner

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)

addition in the assessee’s income on account of short-term capital gain. The AO also noted that assessee and the co-owner

VISHAL GIFT CENTRE - LLP,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gain\nof Rs.1,04,95,230/- and Rs.1,49,41,169/- respectively from\nimpugned transactions, thereby making an aggregate addition of Rs.\n2,54,36,399/- to the returned income

RAMANLAL PIRODIA,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, AAYKAR BHAWAN

capital account\nand without showing the same as additional income. Therefore, the\nadditional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account.\nRamanlal Pirodia\nITA No.778/Ind/2025\n Assessment year 2019-20\nThus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of\nundisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4)\nduring search. Also, the appellant

ASHOK KUMAR MOONAT,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), INDORE, INDORE

capital account\nand without showing the same as additional income. Therefore, the\nadditional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account.\nThus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of\nundisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4)\nduring search. Also, the appellant has accepted the addition made by\nthe AO amounting

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital gain on purchase and sale of shares as bogus and thereby making the addition u/s 68 of the Act without allowing brokerage expenses. The assessee is an individual and derives income

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital gain on purchase and sale of shares as bogus and thereby making the addition u/s 68 of the Act without allowing brokerage expenses. The assessee is an individual and derives income