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

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

assessed\nby AO at Rs.2,06,09,690/- from sale of properties as against capital gain\ndeclared by assessee from those properties in this manner is not valid and\nnot sustainable.\n\n13. Ld. AR relied upon a decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in Urban\nImprovement Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO-Ward 27(2), Delhi, ITA No.\n7496/Del/2019 wherein

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

block assessment order, meaning thereby, there was no substantive addition in existence at all, and the protective addition presupposed the existence of substantive additions. In another words whenever additions were made, they were only substantive additions. The term protective addition is a misnomer, actually it is a substantive addition. The protective addition name has been given to it since

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)

capital gain’ and since the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in provisions of s.54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F to the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com 173, as also relied upon

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)

capital gain’ and since the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in provisions of s.54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F to the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com 173, as also relied upon

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)

capital gain’ and since the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in provisions of s.54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F to the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com 173, as also relied upon

SHANKAR SEWANI,NEW MARKET vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

capital gain arising from the sale of immoveable property. 6 Shankar Sewani 5. As regards the documents seized during the course of search operation in case of Signature Group the issue raised by the assessee cannot be decided conclusively in the absence of date of alleged search and seizure operation because in any case the proceedings u/s 153C could have

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

gain / loss in this case arising on the sale of apartment no. B-1203, Wing-B, 12th Floor, Cedar Block, Greenage, Bangalore would have been split into two or shown by both the assessee appellant and his wife Smt. Naina Parekh? The capital loss of Rs.11,80,710/- would have been split into two viz Rs.5,90,355/- each

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

Appeal is allowed

block assessment itself is without\njurisdiction then there is no question of levy of any penalty under s.\n158BFA(2) and therefore it is open to the assessee to set up the\nquestion of validity of the assessment in the appeal against the levy\nof penalty.\n8. 9. We also derive support from another judgement of Hon'ble\nBombay High

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

block assessment in case of M/s Nikita Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. which was also subject matter before the Pr. CIT and the disallowance made by the AO on account of depreciation was deleted. Therefore, the assesse as well as M/s. Nikita Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. have been assessed by the same AO and hence the identity and financial statements

ANAND PRAKASH KAMDAR,BHOPAL vs. ACIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Anand Prakash Kamdar Acit-1(1) E-4/188, Bhopal बनाम/ Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Afopk0788A Assesseeby S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv.& Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

capital gain of Rs. 36,76,886/- derived from sale of urban agricultural land and claiming exemption of Rs. 36,76,886/- u/s 54B on the basis of investment made in another agricultural land and thereby offering taxable gain at Rs. Nil, which was accepted by the authorities. Thereafter, during the course of search- proceeding undertaken by department, a document

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

block of assets. The AO further noted that in the noted of accounts the said subsidy amount is shown in the form of exemption of entry tax, electricity duty exemption, exemption from tax payable to State Government, exemption from payment of stamp duty for various durations. The AO was of the view that the nature of exemption provided by State

DEVENDRA CHOKSEY,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Devendra Chouksey, Pr. Cit-1, Aayakar Bhawan, 20/8, Shalimar Enclave, 48, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Near Under Bridge, E-3, Vs. Road, Bhopal 462011 Arera Colony, Bhopal 462016 Pan Abapc5311R (Appellant) (Respondent)

block Fanda, Thesil Hujur, District Bhopal Kasra No 157/164/1/3 area 0.660 hector (1.63 acre) from Shri Arvnid Singh Thakur, was not an issue or aspect under the limited scrutiny is the case was picked up for limited scrutiny on four issues only at mentioned in the para 2 of the assessment order. Secondly, the issue of increase in capital

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

capital gains were clearly available before the\nAssessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings and that the\nRevenue had not brought any material before it, which was not disclosed by\nthe assessee in the original return of income. Thus, the Tribunal concluded\nthat there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material\nfact relevant

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

gains of the business and profession". In the course of assessment the assessee submitted .its explanation on why the undisclosed stock should be treated as a business income. In this connection it was stated that at the time of search, the investigating officers found unaccounted stock in the business premise of the assessee at 114/116, Mittal Court, 'C' Wing, 11th

M/S SWADESH DEVLOPERS AND BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

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

Capital Gain on sale of land as business income are not supported by any incriminating material found during the course of search and therefore, assessee succeeds on this legal ground and 16 Swadesh Developers the addition made for A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2012-13 are deleted and deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act claimed by the assessee

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,INDORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

Block etc. Your Honours, by no stretch of imagination, the expenditure incurred by the assessee Page 7 of 29 Indore Development Authority ITA Nos. 8/Ind/2024 & 12 other appeals of Assessee & Revenue for AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 Authority on construction of OPD at MYH or construction of Administrative Building of Collectorate can be considered

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,INDORE vs. DCIT ( EXEMPTION CIRCLE) , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

Block etc. Your Honours, by no stretch of imagination, the expenditure incurred by the assessee Page 7 of 29 Indore Development Authority ITA Nos. 8/Ind/2024 & 12 other appeals of Assessee & Revenue for AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 Authority on construction of OPD at MYH or construction of Administrative Building of Collectorate can be considered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

Block etc. Your Honours, by no stretch of imagination, the expenditure incurred by the assessee Page 7 of 29 Indore Development Authority ITA Nos. 8/Ind/2024 & 12 other appeals of Assessee & Revenue for AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 & 2021-22 Authority on construction of OPD at MYH or construction of Administrative Building of Collectorate can be considered