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

exempt from tax as the land in question was not a capital asset ITA No.853 of 2017 5 Krishna Mohan Chourasia as per the provision of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act till the date of its diversion. Thereafter, capital gain

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

exempt from tax as the\nland in question was not a capital asset as per the provision of section\n2(14)(iii) of the Act till the date of its diversion. Thereafter, capital gain

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

exempt Long Term Capital Gain. Thus, the claim of Long Term Capital Gain exemption is bogus; in Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7

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

exempt Long Term Capital Gain. Thus, the claim of Long Term Capital Gain exemption is bogus; in Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7

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

exempt Long Term Capital Gain. Thus, the claim of Long Term Capital Gain exemption is bogus; in Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7

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

exempt Long Term Capital Gain. Thus, the claim of Long Term Capital Gain exemption is bogus; in Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7

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

exempt Long Term Capital Gain. Thus, the claim of Long Term Capital Gain exemption is bogus; in Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7

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

exempted capital gain 44,81,373 5 Addition of amounts paid by WCS 35,50,000 6 Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed

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

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

capital gain from sale of impugned properties at Rs.2,06,09,690/-\nby varying/denying the costs and exemption, is beyond

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

exemption sections including 54F as legislature\nitself intended to keep it separate.\nIn our current case we are dealing with the facts of reinvestment under section\n54F which mandates assessee to reinvest the net consideration of capital asset and\nsection 54EC only requires to reinvest capital gain

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

GOVIND HARINARAYAN 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

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(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

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

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

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

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

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of the long term capital gain arising from sale of 31100 shares

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

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of the long term capital gain arising from sale of 31100 shares