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

46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering Ltd not chargeable to tax. The assessee has purchased 5000 shares of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Pvt Ltd through stock broker M/s Shah Space Manager Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara (Gujarat). After

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

46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering Ltd not chargeable to tax. The assessee has purchased 5000 shares of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Pvt Ltd through stock broker M/s Shah Space Manager Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara (Gujarat). After

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

46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering Ltd not chargeable to tax. The assessee has purchased 5000 shares of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Pvt Ltd through stock broker M/s Shah Space Manager Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara (Gujarat). After

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

gain\narising therefrom was not taxable.\n5. The first issue raised in Ground No. 1 which calls for our\nadjudication is whether or not the impugned land sold by assessee was\nsituated within the prescribed area/distance of section 2(14)(iii)(a)/(b).\n6. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides on this issue and\ncarefully perused the orders

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,

46 of impugned order:\nPara 8(iv)(e) During search seizure operations, a cash of Rs.\n1,60,000/- was found in an envelope (Page 3 of LPS-2) kept in locker\nNo. 006. Mukesh Sharma A/c is found to be mentioned on envelope\nand Shri Mukesh Sharma is an accountant in assessee-society.\nTherefore, the PCIT(Central) inferred that

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

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

46,480/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 4. Now assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld.AO has erred in law and on facts by initiating proceedings u/s 147 without jurisdiction. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in facts in confirming

KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

section 54F(1)(b), if the cost of new asset is less than the net consideration of the original asset, then so much of the capital gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportionate as the cost of new asset bears to the net consideration. In the instant case, the net consideration

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

46,354/-, being the differential of capital gain Rs. 32,32,461/- determined by AO and the capital gain of Rs. 1,86,107/- already declared by assessee. The comparative figures of working made by assessee and made by AO are given below for a ready reference: As As computed computed by assessee by AO Assessee’s 1/3rd share

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

46,732 KAPPAC 250 20.05.2014 602.27 1,50,698 3,005/- Pharma KAPPAC 450 09.06.2014 338.76 1,52,442 5,408/- Pharma Page 2 of 24 Smt.Sarla Jain, Khadwa,vs.ITO,Ward 1, Khanndwa A. Y. : 2015-16 5. Now, the assessee has raised following grounds: “1. The assessment is null and void as assessment should have been made u/s 153C

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

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

46,824/- only hence notice issued on 19.04.2021 was barred by time and order passed based on such notice deserves to be quashed. 03) Issue: Validity of approval of Notice under section 148 of the Act: That the Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in law in not appreciating the fact that notice under section

SHRI VINOD CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. ITO1 3), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Vinod Choudhary, Ito 1(3) 12, Niranjanpur, Indore Vs. Lasudia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akrpv 4892 Q Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bomb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

46 TAXMANN.COM 300 (SC) • Rukmani Devi Agarwal vs. ITO (ITA 557/JP/2018) • ACIT vs. S. Balasundaram (ITA 1832/Mds/2012) 6. The Ld. D.R. submitted that since the sale deed was registered in A.Y. 2012-13 the same cannot be taken into account for A.Y. 2011-12 but in the current A.Y. i.e. 2012-13. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

46. We also note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal (supra) in similar situation held that, dehorse incriminating Material assessment u/s.153A is not sustainable in the case of unabated assessment. We may gainfully refer to the said decision as under: 44. After hearing both the parties and perusing the facts

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

46. We also note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal (supra) in similar situation held that, dehorse incriminating Material assessment u/s.153A is not sustainable in the case of unabated assessment. We may gainfully refer to the said decision as under: 44. After hearing both the parties and perusing the facts

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

46. We also note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal (supra) in similar situation held that, dehorse incriminating Material assessment u/s.153A is not sustainable in the case of unabated assessment. We may gainfully refer to the said decision as under: 44. After hearing both the parties and perusing the facts

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

46. We also note that the co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal (supra) in similar situation held that, dehorse incriminating Material assessment u/s.153A is not sustainable in the case of unabated assessment. We may gainfully refer to the said decision as under: 44. After hearing both the parties and perusing the facts

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

46 Mohanlal Chugh & others ‘long term capital gain’ and since the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in provisions of s.54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F to the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com