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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Capital Gain Rs.44018/-\n2.4 However, having gone through the sale deed of the land bearing Khasra\nNo.528/1,528/3/1/2/1 Vill. Godermau, Near Reliance office, before Gandhi\nNagar Chowk, Patwari Halka no.04, R.I.Div-01, Tehsil Huzoor, Bhopal it was\nfound that the said land has been sold by the assessee to Shri Rajesh\nRathore on 05/02/2009. The sale consideration has been reflected

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

capital gain.\nFurther, I am satisfied that the assessee had concealed the particulars\nof her income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are\ninitiated

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Capital Gain Deposit Scheme and that the due date of filing the return of income tax is not as specified in Section 139(1) but as specified in Section 139(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer declined the claim of the assessee and returned finding that the assessee has concealed her particulars of income and initiated proceedings for penalty

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

capital-gain of Rs. 3,10,21,341/- [3,29,84,651 (-) 19,63,310] vide assessment-order dated 30.03.2016. Subsequently, vide penalty

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

capital-gain of Rs. 3,10,21,341/- [3,29,84,651 (-) 19,63,310] vide assessment-order dated 30.03.2016. Subsequently, vide penalty

THE JCIT RANGE-3, INDORE vs. SHRI AMANDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jcit, Range-3 Shri Amandeep Singh Indore Bhatia बनाम/ 8/5, Bcc House, Manoramaganj, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Agopb 3205 E Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ar Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

penalty was imposed on Shyam and not on Sunil. He submitted that the AO has also made a direct verification from Sunil u/s 133(6) for his own satisfaction, in response to which Sunil had confirmed the sale-transactions having been executed by him. Ld. AR strongly contended that the capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DEVI SINGH, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit

penalty was imposed qua the capital gain of Rs. 4,14,11,696/-\nassessed by AO in assessment-order. Since

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DEVI SINGH, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani

penalty was imposed qua the capital gain of Rs. 4,14,11,696/- assessed by AO in assessment-order. Since

SMT HAFIZ SHAIKH,DEWAS vs. THE ITO WARD-1, DEWAS

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihafiz Shaikh Ito Ward-1 32/2, Laxmi Park Moti Dewas Vs. Bunglow Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajups6986 L Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023

penalty proceedings u/s 270A is being initiated separately. 6. The provision of section 45(3) contemplates only the deemed consideration in case of transfer of capital asset by the partner to the partnership firm. Therefore, the claim of deduction u/s 54B cannot be denied only because the transfer of the capital asset falls under the provision of section

SEEMA JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

penalty. 3. On the Facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. C.I.T (A) failed to realise that it is only a case of reworking or recalculation of long term capital gain

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

Penalty एवं Prosecu"on क8 काय:वाह" भी "ारंभ क8 जा सकती है । अतः आपसे अनुरोध है 5क पूछे गए ""नD का सह" एवं सट"क उ1र दे एवं सह" त?य एवं जानकार" "Fतुत करG । IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma उ1र – मेरे Bवारा मेरे बयान मG जो भी जानकार" द" गई है वह सJय है

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16 .08.2023

Capital Gain, interest income during the FY 2009-10. It is also noticed that the assessee had not filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, which is on due on 31/07/2010. Assessee has filed his return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the 1.T. Act, on 30/08/2017 vide acknowledgement

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

Appeal is allowed

capital gain of Rs.32.79,066/- declared by the\nassessee and claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act is bogus, therefore, there\nis live nexus between the information available and the satisfaction recorded\nand, accordingly, Ld. CIT-DR submit that the case of the assessee was\nrightly reopened and prayed accordingly.\nPage 19 of 49\nSantosh Rathore\nITA No. 451/Ind/2024

NIRBHAY SINGHH RATHORE,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradिनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2015-16 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"

gains. The stand of the Assessing Officer is that this Rs.15,00,000/- is to be assessed as income from other sources and could not be included in the component of the sale consideration of the house. 4. With the assistance of learned representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Learned Counsel for the assessee read over the sale

SANDHYA GARG,JABALPUR vs. THE ITO,W-2(4), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisandhya Garg Ito War,2(4) 30, Subhash Grih Nirman Bhopal Society, Priydarshini Colony Vs. Jabalpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agtpg7994G Assessee By Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

gain to tax at Rs.3,87,607/-. The assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) but due to non-representation on behalf of the assessee the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee while passing ex-parte order and confirmation addition made by the AO. Before the tribunal the assessee has filed the copies of receipt issued

M/S SIDDHULA;L,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that in the case of assessee-individual, the AO received an information that the assessee sold a land on 06.09.2010 for Rs. 35,00,000/-, having stamps valuation of Rs. 48,05,000/- and earned capital gain

MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

penalty which was also added back to the total income by the assessee itself. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT on examination of the assessment record noticed certain discrepancies and issued show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 25.02.2022. In the show cause notice Pr. CIT has pointed out various items of claim on which the AO allegedly

GANPAT SINGH,PIPLANI vs. ITO 3(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Ganpat Singh Ito 3(1) बनाम/ House No.67, Bhopal Vs. Khajuri Kalan, Piplani-B Sector, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Cuhps9954G Assessee By Ms. Saniya Farhaz Menon, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

capital gain. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) through notice dated 13.12.2017 for imposition of penalty