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

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30

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

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30

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

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30

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

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30

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

30% 45 Total 4,15,620 22,536 Rebate u/s 87A 22,536 Net tax Nil 7. From above computation of tax liability/rebate u/s 87A demonstrated by Ld. AR, which goes undisputed by revenue, we find that the AO has not Page 3 of 12 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal ITA No. 702/Ind/2025 – AY 2024-25 allowed rebate

VISHAL GIFT CENTRE - LLP,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section\n2(14)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of capital gain accruing to\nthe assessee till the diversion of agricultural land on 25-11-2010 shall\nnot be eligible to tax. Further, for the purpose of computation of the\namount of capital gain that shall be exempt from tax, the assessee\nsubmitted that fair market value

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,

30% share\nof Sethia family. From AY 2017-18, the assessee-society has given\nmore than Rs.40 crores as rent to the firm. The assessee-society has\npaid such significant amount of rent to the firm but had not attempted\nto own infrastructure of itself whereas the school is paying Rs.\n33,00,000/- salary for keeping a director (finance

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

30) taxmann.com 34 (Delhi). Paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment read as under:- “8. This Court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, that Section

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n\nसीमित संवीक्षा (कम्प्यूटर आधारित संवीक्षा चयन)\n\nLimited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection)\n\nयह आपको सूचित किया जाता है कि कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2016-17 की आयकर विवरणी जो कि पावती संख्या 504695131161016\nदिनांक 16/10/2016 को दाखिल किया गया था, सीमित संवीक्षा हेतु चयनित है।\nThis is for your

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

30,000 as discussed by the assessee. Thus, the Long Term Capital Gain should be Rs. 98,72,400/- instead of Rs. 40,72,400/-. This fact was to be taken into account while completing the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and an addition

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

10 of Paper-Book) to the effect that the shares were held in Broker’s Pool A/c from date of purchase (09.01.2009) on assessee’s behalf. Ld. AR contended that these documentary evidences are not rebutted or disputed by AO but the AO has treated the capital gain declared by assessee as non-genuine precisely for the reason that there

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

30,13,893 Nil house Taxable capital gain 1,86,107 32,32,461 Page 3 of 11 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(4), Bhopal ITA No. 208/Ind/2022 – AY 2009-10 Aggrieved, the assessee carried mater in first appeal but did not get any relief. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Section 14 of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961, the heads of income are salaries, income from house\nHarpreet Kaur\nITA No. 730/Ind/2024 – AY 2009-10\nproperty, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains\nand income from other sources, that is to say, that the money, bullion,\netc., found, of which the assessee is the owner, for which there

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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or” 17. The AO issued a notice u/s 142(1) dated 03.12.2019 with Annexure which reads as under: ANNEXURE Assessment Proceedings in your case is pending for AY 2012-13. In this regard, you are requested to comply to the following points: Please furnish complete computation of Long

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

SMT. SARLA JAIN,KHANDWA vs. ITO WARD 1 KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sarla Jain, Ito, C/O Nakoda Marketing, Ward-1, बनाम/ Bhavani Mata Road, Khandwa Khandwa Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpj1316J Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

section 153C. In that view of matter, we are of the considered view that the AO is very much justified in framing assessment u/s 143(3). Therefore, there is no worth in the ground of assessee. The same is hereby dismissed. Page 15 of 24 Smt.Sarla Jain, Khadwa,vs.ITO,Ward 1, Khanndwa A. Y. : 2015-16 Ground

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