SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

capital gain claimed without verification. In the light of entire facts discussed above, I am of the considered view that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 22.12.2016 for the A.Y. 2014-15 in your case is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, which requires to be revised u/s 263

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

capital gain claimed without verification. In the light of entire facts discussed above, I am of the considered view that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 22.12.2016 for the A.Y. 2014-15 in your case is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, which requires to be revised u/s 263

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

capital gain claimed without verification. In the light of entire facts discussed above, I am of the considered view that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 22.12.2016 for the A.Y. 2014-15 in your case is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, which requires to be revised u/s 263

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

capital gain claimed without verification. In the light of entire facts discussed above, I am of the considered view that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 22.12.2016 for the A.Y. 2014-15 in your case is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, which requires to be revised u/s 263

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

gain and various deductions claimed under the provisions of law and took one of the view permissible under the law and assessed the income after making certain disallowance. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83, has laid down the following ratio: "A bare reading of section 263 of the Income

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

Appeal is allowed

revision order passed u/s 263 is nullity and void ab initio.\nThe Ld. AR submitted that during the course of re-assessment proceedings\nalso, assessee has objected the reopening of the assessment which were\nstated to have been disposed of vide letter dated 11/03/2022 available in\npaper book Pages 9 to 13 and submit that the case of the assessee

SHRI SALEEM PARVEZ,BHOPAL vs. PCIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Saleem Parvez Pcit-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ P.A.No. Acyps8006L Vs. Appellant (Assessee) Respondent (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22 / 02 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09 /03/ 2022 आदेश / O R D E R

u/s 263 of the Act and the revision-order was passed on 14.01.2019, a copy of which is placed on Page No. 30 of the Paper-Book. The Ld. AR Page 8 of 12 Saleem Parvez ITANo.248/Ind/2021 submitted that while passing revision-order, the Ld. PCIT has not raised any objection against the long-term capital gain

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

revision u/s 263. It is true that the said decision dealt a case of section 263 but on a careful reading of the para 5 of order, we find that the ITAT has vehemently adjudicated that when the basic condition (i.e. making new investment within the period specified in section 54) is satisfied, the assessee remains entitled to claim

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

revision-order dated 16.03.2020 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, Indore [“Ld. PCIT”] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 20.11.2017 passed by ITO, 4(1), Indore [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal

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

capital gain was genuine or not. 5. Legal position on power of Commissioner for Revision u/s 263: Case laws on the power

PRAGYA SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Pragya Saxena Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Awfps 9685 L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

revision-order dated 08.03.2022passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1,Bhopal[“Ld. PCIT)”]u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 23.11.2019 passed by learned ITO-5(4), Bhopal[“Ld. AO”]u/s 143(3)/147for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal

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

M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT , BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

gains strength and support by the ratio of the decisions in the case laws mentioned here below: 1.Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that assessment made in undue haste and without making inquiries which are called for the circumstances of the case is erroneous and prejudicial

SAQUIB AHMED,PIPARIYA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gain calculation deductions under chapter\nVI-A, etc. The Ld. AO in the aforesaid assessment order held\nthat:-\n//\nIn view of the submission made by the assessee and after\nconsidering the totality of facts and circumstances of the\ncase, the return income of the assessee is accepted”. That the\naforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

revision order dated 18.02.2022 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short Pr. CIT) Indore passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. There is a delay of 199 days in filing the present appeal. The assesse filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

capital gain and interest. The details and records produced before him were examined and thereafter the returned income is accepted. Thus it is not a case of lack of enquiry on the part of the AO. Though the AO has not discussed the issue in elaborate manner, but once he was satisfied with the supporting evidences produced by the assessee

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

capital gain arising from sale of the agricultural land in question by treating the same as situated within the distance of 2 km from Tehsil and District Harda as Page 11 of 26 ITANo.262 & 263/Ind/2024 Shri Premnarayan & Smt. Sharda stated by ITO, Investigation Bhopal in his report. The AO has completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

capital gain arising from sale of the agricultural land in question by treating the same as situated within the distance of 2 km from Tehsil and District Harda as Page 11 of 26 ITANo.262 & 263/Ind/2024 Shri Premnarayan & Smt. Sharda stated by ITO, Investigation Bhopal in his report. The AO has completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B