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

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

disallowance of cost of improvement and expenses on sale of property, and rejection of exemption claims. A subsequent additional ground was raised concerning the AO exceeding the scope of limited scrutiny.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the AO had travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny by varying/denying costs/exemption related to capital gains

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

disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income

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

disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income

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

disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income

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

disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income

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

disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income

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

Disallowance of salary expenditure 5,11,29,204 4 Addition for non-genuine exempted capital gain 44,81,373 5 Addition

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

disallowing the claim of rebate of Rs.13,320/- under section 87A of the Act in respect of tax on short term capital gain

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 is chargeable to tax in A.Y. 2015-16. And therefore the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining disallowance

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain to Rs.90,77,095 by considering the stamp duty value of the property as sale consideration and restricting the exemption for the new property to the purchase cost only, disallowing

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 of Rs. 16,12,698/- as income from undisclosed source and also disallowed the claim of brokerage of Rs.31

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

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

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

capital gain of Rs. 16,12,698/- as income from undisclosed source and also disallowed the claim of brokerage of Rs.31

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 of Rs. 16,12,698/- as income from undisclosed source and also disallowed the claim of brokerage of Rs.31

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

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54B to the extent of the new land purchased by the assessee in the name of family members and allowed the claim only to the extent of Rs.69,55,000/- for which the assessee has purchased the land in his own name. Accordingly the AO has worked out long term capital gain

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

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

Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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

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

Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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 exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance

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

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

Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance