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

25 as under: Page 20 of 51 ITANo.470/Ind/2023 Sadhuram Balani “12. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The AO has doubted the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by the assessee of M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd based on the investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata wherein certain persons were

KANHAIYA LAL PANCHAL,RATLAM vs. BPL-W-(91)(95), RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2024-25 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Bpl-W-(91)(95) 1, Jadwasa Kala, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqrpp0055D Assessee By Shri Kaide Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

iii) the Explanatory notes to the Finance Bill 2025. 5.7 Having perused the relevant statutory provisions and the arguments advanced by the assessee’s Authorised Representative (AR), we find merit in the claim of the assessee. 5.8 The amended first proviso to section 87A [inserted by the Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. A.Y. 2024–25] provides: “Where the total income

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

iii).any transfer of a capital asset under a gift or will or an irrevocable trust: Provided that this clause shall not apply to transfer under a gift or an irrevocable trust of a capital asset being shares, debentures or warrants allotted by a company directly or indirectly to its employees under any Employees' Stock Option Plan or Scheme

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

25,000/- amounting to Rs. 69,750/- as undisclosed commission income" u/s 68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita

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

25,000/- amounting to Rs. 69,750/- as undisclosed commission income" u/s 68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita

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

25,000/- amounting to Rs. 69,750/- as undisclosed commission income" u/s 68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita

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

25,000/- amounting to Rs. 69,750/- as undisclosed commission income" u/s 68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita

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

25,000/- amounting to Rs. 69,750/- as undisclosed commission income" u/s 68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita

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

Appeal is allowed

25, 28, 29-30, 32, 35, 36-39, 42, 43-46, 48, 49 & 50 of Paper-Book to show the vehement queries raised by AO and replies/documents filed by assessee. Ld. AR demonstrated that the assessee not only filed details qua the eligibility and allowability of exemption u/s 54B but also made an alternative submission to the AO that

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

10,165 ( which is more than the\nten thousand limit) as prescribed in clause (iii)(a) of Section 2(14), and as such the\nland sold is a \"capital asset\".\n10.3 On this issue the Ld. AR submitted that the facts of the case cited by the first\nappellate authority CIT vs G M Omer Khan( supra), is entirely different

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

gain 44,81,373 5 Addition of amounts paid by WCS 35,50,000 6 Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed income 8,42,92,165 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances made by AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal on various grounds assailing the relief

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

Capital Gains Accounts Scheme u/s 54 Rs. 62,00,000/- Page 10 of 12 Dilip Chandrasenrao Mahadik Assessment year 2015-16 On comparison of these three workings given by assessee, we find substantial mis-matches and variations. To illustrate, in (ii) above, the assessee has claimed ‘transfer expenses” of Rs. 8,78,515/- which is not claimed in other workings

AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

10(23C), 12A or 80G of the Act in form No.10AB, for which the last date for filing falls on or before 29th September, 2022, may be filed on or before 30th September, 2022.” 16. Thus, in the Circular No.8/2022 dated 31.03.2022, cited above, there is mention about Section 80G of the Act (in form No. 10AB) for registration

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

10:30 AM. You are requested to attend in person or through an authorized representative to submit your representation, if any alongwith supporting documents/information in support of the Issues Involved (as mentioned below). If you wish that the Revision proceeding be concluded on the basis of your written submissions/representations filed in this office, on or before the said due date

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

10:30 AM. You are requested to attend in person or through an authorized representative to submit your representation, if any alongwith supporting documents/information in support of the Issues Involved (as mentioned below). If you wish that the Revision proceeding be concluded on the basis of your written submissions/representations filed in this office, on or before the said due date

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

iii. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 28-2- 2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1-3-2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 1-3-2022 is greater

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

capital gain. 5. I have heard rival submissions and perused the record placed before us and also carefully going through decisions and judgments referred and relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Before me the assessee has raised three fold legal arguments. Firstly, the notice u/s 148 of the Act is time barred secondly, no valid approval as provided

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

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

section 54, 54B, 54D, 54E (54EA, 54EB 54F, 54G, 54H) be charged to income tax under the head Capital gain and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place." 10.8 In the present case during the period under consideration, the appellant neither received the full consideration of land nor handed over