VIJAY RADHESHYAM NYATI HUF,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

1), Mumbai ITAT Mumbai ‘SMC’ (2021) (Pages 253 – 256 of Case Laws Paper Book) 17. Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan Vs. DCIT- Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai “D” Bench) – (2020) (Pages 257 - 276 of Case Laws Paper Book) 18. Ashok Agrawal & Others V/s ACIT, Jaipur, I.T.A.T. ITA No.124/JP/20 & others dated 18.11.2020. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that

KUMARI AYUSHI NYATI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

1), Mumbai ITAT Mumbai ‘SMC’ (2021) (Pages 253 – 256 of Case Laws Paper Book) 17. Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan Vs. DCIT- Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai “D” Bench) – (2020) (Pages 257 - 276 of Case Laws Paper Book) 18. Ashok Agrawal & Others V/s ACIT, Jaipur, I.T.A.T. ITA No.124/JP/20 & others dated 18.11.2020. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that

MANISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM NYATI ,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

1), Mumbai ITAT Mumbai ‘SMC’ (2021) (Pages 253 – 256 of Case Laws Paper Book) 17. Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan Vs. DCIT- Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai “D” Bench) – (2020) (Pages 257 - 276 of Case Laws Paper Book) 18. Ashok Agrawal & Others V/s ACIT, Jaipur, I.T.A.T. ITA No.124/JP/20 & others dated 18.11.2020. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that

SHRI NILESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Capital Gain u/s 10(38) of the Act arising from sale of equity shares of Sunrise Asian Limited at Rs.1,40,95,302/-. Case was selected for scrutiny assessment Ayush Jain & Ors ITA No.616, 617/Ind/2019 & 293&294/Ind/2020 through CASS and notice u/s 142(1) was duly served upon the assessee. Detailed questionnaire was also issued. Details submissions were filed

PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Capital Gain u/s 10(38) of the Act arising from sale of equity shares of Sunrise Asian Limited at Rs.1,40,95,302/-. Case was selected for scrutiny assessment Ayush Jain & Ors ITA No.616, 617/Ind/2019 & 293&294/Ind/2020 through CASS and notice u/s 142(1) was duly served upon the assessee. Detailed questionnaire was also issued. Details submissions were filed

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

10-11 Page 4 of 24 Rs. 9,62,1010 and after deducting the same, long term capital gains was computed at Rs. 1,02,87,899/-. Out of this net long term capital gains of Rs. 3,47,749/- was offered to tax and balance of Rs. 99,40,150/- was claimed as exemption under section

SHRI SHARAD AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE JCIT RANGE-4, INDORE

In the result, all these three appeals of the Assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2009-10

1)(ii) were duly served upon the assessee. Necessary submissions were filed by the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee. In the course of assessment proceedings the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has disclosed long term capital gain of Rs.31,36,997/- as exempted income u/s 10(38) of the Act. The short term capital gain of Rs.61

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

capital assets. The waiver of loan is not equivalent to reimbursement or a grant or a subsidy. Hence, it is held that the waiver does not fall within the ambit of explanation (10) to section 43(1) or proviso thereof. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Kochin

M/S TRUBA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

10 or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB:" [Emphasis supplied] 11. Thus, referring to above amendments/developments in the Act, Ld. AR made a straightforward submission that the concept of “specified violations" in section 12AB(4); the 2nd proviso to section 143(3) empowering the AO to make a reference to PCIT(Central

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

Capital Gain in return of income filed to department, Ld. AR asserted this mistake of assessee in open court with regret on behalf of assessee). Therefore, while Page 2 of 10 Subhash Chandra Agrawal ITA No. 354/Ind/2025 – AY 2019-20 processing return of assessee u/s 143(1), the AO invoked section

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Capital & Finlease Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) (c) PCIT Vs. Rishikesh Buildcon Private Limited (2023) 451 ITR 108 (Delhi) 12. With these submissions, Ld. AR prayed to quash the penalty- orders as time-barred. 13. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that in Para 20.5 of assessment- order, there is no initiation of penalty-proceedings