SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

gain shall be treated as exempt on that count. We find that the Assessing Officer observed that the land sold by the assessee was situated at a distance of 1.5 km (approx.) from the bus stand of kurawar gram panchayat having population of more than 10,000. Thus, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the land in question

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

115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total

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

115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total

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

115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total

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

115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total

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

115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total

SHRI DINESH NIGAM,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (3), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 50C which is not applicable to the appellant’s case in the light of ITAT decision ITO, Ajmer V Raj Kumar Parashar ITA No.11/JP/2016 decided on 28.9.2017 by ITAT Jaipur.” 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 45(4) would not be attracted on the retirement of the two partners and consequential allotment of their share in the assets in the Assessee Firm. The Court also observed in para 20 of his order that on the retirement of a partner from the firm, there will be allotment of his interests in the firm. The interest

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 45(4) would not be attracted on the retirement of the two partners and consequential allotment of their share in the assets in the Assessee Firm. The Court also observed in para 20 of his order that on the retirement of a partner from the firm, there will be allotment of his interests in the firm. The interest

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

115 BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961. I have carefully gone through the assessment order as well as submission of the appellant in this regard. 5.1 The appellant has taken the plea that he did not have any other income except business income. The appellant has also submitted that section 115BBE did not apply in the appellant's case

SHRI LEELAHAR PALASIYAWALA,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(4), INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Leeladhar Palasiyawala, Pr.Cit-1, Village Kalariya, Post Indore बनाम/ Kalariya, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bqdppo511K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

115 days had occurred due to mis-understanding of law by counsel whereby he filed appeal against consequential assessment-order instead of impugned order. With this submission, Ld. AR prayed that the entire delay of 490 days is duly explained, the same is not because of any lethargy, negligence or mala fide intention of assessee and the assessee does

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

gains on the sale of agricultural land at Rao is exempt u/s. 54B. If the said ground is allowed, the addition, if any would be neutralized. f. Ld AO in the remand proceedings has accepted this fact at CIT(A) pg. 18 para 3, which is quoted as under: “Assessee has submitted copies of sale deed of land and letter

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

gains on the sale of agricultural land at Rao is exempt u/s. 54B. If the said ground is allowed, the addition, if any would be neutralized. f. Ld AO in the remand proceedings has accepted this fact at CIT(A) pg. 18 para 3, which is quoted as under: “Assessee has submitted copies of sale deed of land and letter

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain :- a) CIT vs. Accelerated Freeze Drying Co. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 440 (Kerala) b) Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. ITO [2003] 264 ITR 193 (Bom.) " It may please be appreciated that the slump sale transaction was therefore not a Specified Domestic Transaction as defined in section 92BA of the Act and it was not required to be reported

SHRI MANOJ YADAV,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Manoj Yadav Acit Circle 5(1) Gf-Shekhar Residency Indore बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Flat No.204, Vs. Sch, No.54 Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aagpy5452J

section 68, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs.97,49,239/- is a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence against the assessee, which is quite