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

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

capital gain shall be computed by deducting various costs\nfrom full value of consideration. Thus, Ld. DR contended, the capital

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gain accruing to the\nassessee till the date of diversion using such fair market value shall be\nexempt/non-taxable. Further, we are of the view that such 'fair market value\nof land as on the date of diversion' shall be considered as 'cost of acquisition'\nand shall be deducted

KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

capital gain account. The appellant claimed deduction u/s 54EC of Rs. 50 lakhs and deduction u/s 54F of Rs.91,57,000/-. The appellant

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act under Long Term Capital Gain. Ultimately the Ld. A.O came to a conclusion

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act under Long Term Capital Gain. Ultimately the Ld. A.O came to a conclusion

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act under Long Term Capital Gain. Ultimately the Ld. A.O came to a conclusion

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act under Long Term Capital Gain. Ultimately the Ld. A.O came to a conclusion

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act under Long Term Capital Gain. Ultimately the Ld. A.O came to a conclusion

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

capital gain from long-term to short-term based on holding period demonstrated by De- mat A/c, since the assessee has no grievance and accepted the same, we have no point to offer anything from our side. That brings us to conclude that there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by CIT(A); we uphold the same

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

deduction from the amount of income-tax, without any exclusion of income taxable under section 111A. In contrast, section 112A(6) specifically provides that rebate under section 87A shall not be allowed in respect of long-term capital gains

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

deduction u/s 54 and has also paid an amount of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 19,21,000/- thereon (Refer ANNEXURE-1). Besides, assessee also spend an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- (round off) on repairing the purchased house. If these expenses are taken in to account then the Long Term Capital Gain

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

deduction us 54/54F and restricted our\nexemption to Rs.99,48,000/- itself and computed capital gain as per 50C\nprovisions

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

deduction u/s 54B. The case of assesee was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the issue of capital gain arising

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

gain of Rs.44,018/-, bank interest income of Rs.7,369/-\nand tuition income of Rs.60,000/-). The assessee declared taxable capital\ngain of Rs.44,018/- from sale of a residential property to the purchaser\n\"Shri Rajesh Rathore” for Rs.13,21,000/- on 05.02.2009 after deduction

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

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

capital gain/ loss have been earned/incurred are from sale of equity shares of penny stock companies which have seen abnormal price rise in short span Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 without any major financial growth. As the issues raised and facts are common, we will take 6. up the facts of the assessee namely Shri

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

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

capital gain/ loss have been earned/incurred are from sale of equity shares of penny stock companies which have seen abnormal price rise in short span Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 without any major financial growth. As the issues raised and facts are common, we will take 6. up the facts of the assessee namely Shri

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

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

capital gain/ loss have been earned/incurred are from sale of equity shares of penny stock companies which have seen abnormal price rise in short span Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 without any major financial growth. As the issues raised and facts are common, we will take 6. up the facts of the assessee namely Shri

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

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

capital gain/ loss have been earned/incurred are from sale of equity shares of penny stock companies which have seen abnormal price rise in short span Shivnarayan Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 889/Ind/2018,474,206,60,987/Ind/2019 without any major financial growth. As the issues raised and facts are common, we will take 6. up the facts of the assessee namely Shri