SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

Capital Gain 1,22,28,892 AO or by Ld. Pr.CIT. (LTCG) [3 = 1 - 2] 4 Deduction claimed u/s 54B 36,40,080 5 Deduction claimed u/s 54F 73,04,318 Ld. AO in assessment order [Correct] has considered the entire cost of (1,22,28,892*75,58,768/1, new residential house

SHRI PAWAN NAGPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pawan Nagpal Acit-3(1) A-4, Housing Board Colony Vs. Bhopal Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3120A Assessment Year 2009-10 Acit-3(1) Smt. Seema Nagpal Bhopal Vs. P/O M/S. Active Motors A-4, Housing Board Colony Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3119R For Assessees Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca For Department Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

154 be held to be high and unreasonable and be suitably reduced. 4. The appellant crave leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or during the course of appellate proceedings. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s

THE ACIT, 3(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI SEEMA NAGPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pawan Nagpal Acit-3(1) A-4, Housing Board Colony Vs. Bhopal Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3120A Assessment Year 2009-10 Acit-3(1) Smt. Seema Nagpal Bhopal Vs. P/O M/S. Active Motors A-4, Housing Board Colony Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3119R For Assessees Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca For Department Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

154 be held to be high and unreasonable and be suitably reduced. 4. The appellant crave leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or during the course of appellate proceedings. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

154), 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. First we take up the appeal in ITANo.7/Ind/2013 arising from assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) for A.Y.2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 2 of 30 “1.1 That in the facts

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

154), 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. First we take up the appeal in ITANo.7/Ind/2013 arising from assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) for A.Y.2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 2 of 30 “1.1 That in the facts

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

154), 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. First we take up the appeal in ITANo.7/Ind/2013 arising from assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) for A.Y.2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 2 of 30 “1.1 That in the facts

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1 (1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

154), 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. First we take up the appeal in ITANo.7/Ind/2013 arising from assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) for A.Y.2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 2 of 30 “1.1 That in the facts

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

154), 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. First we take up the appeal in ITANo.7/Ind/2013 arising from assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) for A.Y.2010-11. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 2 of 30 “1.1 That in the facts

M/S. SHREE VIGNESH WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DY CIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vighnesh Warehouse Dcit, Cpc & Distributors Private Bangaluru बनाम/ Limited Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue)

u/s 154 which was decided by Ld. AO vide order dated 23.11.2019 but the Ld. AO did not grant the rectification as applied for. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) decided appeal vide order dated 09.12.2021 without giving desired relief. Now the assessee has filed this appeal assailing the order

BHAGWAT PRASAD MALVIYA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

154 permits rectification of Page 3 of 12 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya A.Y. 2014-15 mistakes apparent from record. In the present case, the following apparent errors were observed by the AO: The assessee claimed exemption of Rs. 1,69,64,508 u/s 54B. However, of this, an amount of Rs. 7,79,754 was for agricultural land purchased before

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

rectification applications u/s 154 on 06.11.2022 and 13.12.2022, seeking credit of Rs.14,59,120/- deducted by the purchasers in the name of the assessee's wife. The said applications u/s 154 was rejected on 02.12.2022 and 23.12.2022 as there was mismatch of TDS because only credits appearing in 26AS of the appellant were considered.\n9. Then the appellant filed

DHRUV NARAYAN SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO-2(3), BHOPAL

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidhruv Narayan Singh, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ E-2/192 Arera Colony, 2(3), Vs. Bhopal Bhopal (Pan: Aprps4102H) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Capital Gain. That the aforesaid order is dated 30.03.2016 and the same is hereinafter referred to as “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That by an order u/s 154 of the Act dated 30.05.2018 the tax payable on rectification

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

AFE EDUCATION P LTD,BHOPAL vs. ASST.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BANGLORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Afe Education (P) Ltd. Adit, Bhopal Cpc, Bangalore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarcs 6338 P Assessee By Shri Amay Jain, Adv, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2022

154 to the Ld. AO again seeking the rectification of the intimation but the same was also rejected by Ld. AO vide order dated 05.05.2020. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A) against the order dated 05.05.2020 but did not succeed. Now the assessee has come in appeal before us assailing the order

ANAMIKA GARG ,DEWAS vs. CIT, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Anamika Garg, Pcit, 117, Tukoganj Marg, Ujjain बनाम/ Nayapura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aiwpg 3922 D Assessee By Shri Suresh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

capital gain’. By impugned order, Ld. PCIT has set aside the assessment-order to the file of AO with a direction to re-frame assessment after examining these issues raised by him. Aggrieved by such revision-order, the assessee has filed this appeal. 4. Ld. AR for the assessee made a very strong and straightforward submission attacking the jurisdictional deficit

SHRI MAYUR BANSAL,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)ANo

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

capital gain." 2. "On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- made by AO for A.Y. 2014-15 on account of undisclosed income ofundisclosed investment." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

SIGMA CHEMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

U/S 10AA\n749752\nSub Total:\n14839269\nLess: Items Admissible/For Separate Consideration (-) 1936706\nLEAVE ENCASHMENT PATD\n250337\nDepreciation as Admisie\n1686369\nBusiness Income\n12902563\nIncome from Capital Gain\nYr.\nSet Off of Unabsorbed Capital Loss\nAstt.\nLong Term\nEarlier Assessed\nCapital Loss\nOr Short Term\n2011-2012\n0\n318806\nTotal Loss\n0\n318806\nSet-Off\n0\n0\nBalance C/F\n0\n318806

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

154. However, the rectification request does not impact the correctness of the assessment order. Further, the department has launched a portal for easy, transparent and effective communication with the taxpayers and order and notices are bring served on that portal which is a legally complaint system. Hence, there is no merit in the ground raised by the appellant and hence

SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF),UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BPL-C(91)(1), BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Capital Gains (LTCG) as bogus LTCG on transfer of equity shares as claimed exempt income u/s 10(38) of the IT Act, by the Appellant, which is wrong and baseless. 3. Application of Section 68 and Section 115BBE: The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of income covered u/s 68 of the IT Act being unexplained cash