M/S SHISHUKUNJ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,THE SHISHUKUNJ INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, GRAM JHALARIA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX. AAYKAR BHAWAN,

capital expenditure which otherwise is not an allowable\nexpenditure would be considered as application in the event of an assessee\ntrust enjoying the benefits of the registration. Under the circumstances, the law\nthat should apply is with reference to the year of default. He submitted that\nthe Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) should have acted

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

10(38) read with Section 2(29A) and Section 2(29B). We may also state here that in the assessee's transaction of LTCG, the sale consideration received is Rs.7,82,75,591 pursuant to sale of Listed Scripts of Sunrise between 19.09.2013 - 25.03.2014 and the amount of capital gain as computed by the assessee is Rs.7

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

ii) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Arzoo Anand (2017) 3 ITJ Online 181 (Trib. – Indore) (iii) Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Krishna Devi ITA 125/220 (iv) ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Meenu Goel [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

ii) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Arzoo Anand (2017) 3 ITJ Online 181 (Trib. – Indore) (iii) Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Krishna Devi ITA 125/220 (iv) ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Meenu Goel [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

ii) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Arzoo Anand (2017) 3 ITJ Online 181 (Trib. – Indore) (iii) Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Krishna Devi ITA 125/220 (iv) ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Meenu Goel [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

ii) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Arzoo Anand (2017) 3 ITJ Online 181 (Trib. – Indore) (iii) Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Krishna Devi ITA 125/220 (iv) ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Meenu Goel [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

ii) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Arzoo Anand (2017) 3 ITJ Online 181 (Trib. – Indore) (iii) Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Krishna Devi ITA 125/220 (iv) ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Meenu Goel [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 14. The Ld. DR raised objection of the cash purchase of shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal

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

10,46,013/- against which claimed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 81,538/-, leaving net capital gain of Rs. 3,09,64,475/-. From such capital gain, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54B of Rs. 3,09,64,475/- on the strength of investment in another agricultural land situated at Gram Bijukhedi, Indore purchased

DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI PRAKASH BHOJWANI, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Shri Prakash Bhojwani, 1(1), H.No. 7, Parika Phase-I, Bhopal Walmi Road, बनाम/ Chuna Bhatti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue / Respondent) (Assessee / Appellant) Pan: Abvpb 8825 E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

ii). Now, the revenue being aggrieved by order of CIT(A), has come in next appeal before us. Page 2 of 12 Dy. CIT,1(1), Bhopal vs. Shri Prakash Bhojwani, Bhopal Assessment year 2010-11 Ground No. 1: 5. In this ground, revenue claims that the CIT(A) has erred in accepting the income

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

14 of\ndecision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Jagdish C. Dhabalia Vs. Income-\ntax Officer, 25(2)(1), Mumbai (2019) 104 taxmann.com 208 (Bombay) to\ncontend that the provision of section 50C must be given full effect; that the\nprovision of section 50C is relevant not only for computation of capital gain\nu/s 48 but also for determination

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

Appeal is allowed

10 of assessment-order. In her submissions, the assessee also claimed before AO that the lands sold by her were not situated within the prescribed distance of 8 kilometers as per section 2(14)(iii)(b) and therefore the lands were excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' and the resultant capital gain was not taxable. However, the AO noted

SHRI SUNIL SHASRMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11

ii) for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration: " Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not same

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition