SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. Income of Rs.46,16,412/- declared in the income tax return

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

House Property, Business income, Capital gain and Income from Other sources. In the said computation of total income, the appellant

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

property on 8.6.2008 on which net capital gains of Rs. 32,77,450/- . The assessee has purchased land for Rs. 38.88 Lakh till September 2006. However, due to petition filed for injunction by the owners of land, the Civil Court ordered status quo, which was prevented the assessee for further construction of the residential house

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

house. The ld. AR further submitted that the investment of net sale consideration in new residential property within a period of three years from the date of sale of the property is important rather than keeping the net sale consideration in separate Capital Gain

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

house property has agreed, to buy another property for self- occupation and secures possession of the property within one year from the date of sale of other property, he is entitled for exemption from capital gains

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

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

property\namounting to Rs 6,60,000/-.\n\n3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was\nnot justified to confirm the addition made by Ld. AO by rejecting the exemption\nclaim made by the assessee u/s 54F by investing in new house Rs.\n60,00,000/- (Proportionate exemption claim

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

house-property, business / profession and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 90,69,199/- from

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gains from business and profession. Thus, taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter we do not find any irregularities and/or ambiguity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) considering the income derived by the appellant company from leasing out properties in the mall falls under the head income from business and not under the head income

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gains from business and profession. Thus, taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter we do not find any irregularities and/or ambiguity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) considering the income derived by the appellant company from leasing out properties in the mall falls under the head income from business and not under the head income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gains from business and profession. Thus, taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter we do not find any irregularities and/or ambiguity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) considering the income derived by the appellant company from leasing out properties in the mall falls under the head income from business and not under the head income

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gains from business and profession. Thus, taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter we do not find any irregularities and/or ambiguity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) considering the income derived by the appellant company from leasing out properties in the mall falls under the head income from business and not under the head income

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

house-property, business / profession and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 66,28,161/- earned

BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

house property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

property on 29th Dec., 1 964 : he realised a capital gain of Rs. 42,550; he invested an amount more than the amount of this capital gain in the construction of a house

THE DCIT,, RATLAM vs. SHRI ANIL JHALANI, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the cross

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

property has been taken place within the meaning of section 2(47)(V) on the taking over of possession by the transferee from the transferer. The capital gain is chargeable in the year in which the possession was handed over by the appellant Shri Anil Jhalani to M/s Shubham Construction. The A.O. has worked out the chargeable long term capital

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset [***], being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

House property 3,90,000 2 Income from business (being 5,71,856 proprietor of M/s Samarth Impex, Indore) 3 Income from Long Term Capital 27,50,406 Gain

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

house property and, therefore, should be treated as a capital gain for\nthe purpose of taxation. In this view of the matter