M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA

M/S TRUBA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

gains of business\nwhich is not incidental to\nthe attainment of its\nobjectives or separate\nbooks of account are not\nmaintained by such\ntrust or institution in\nrespect of the business\nwhich is incidental to the\nattainment of its\nobjectives; or\n(c) the trust or institution\nhas applied any part of\nits income from the\nproperty held under

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,

13-14 of impugned order:\n\"SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT\n13. The assessee in its reply dated 23.09.2024 at point 9 has objected to\nthe reference made by the Assessing Officer under 2nd proviso to section 143(3)\nof the I.T. Act by the DCIT(Central)-2 for cancellation of registration

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Capital & Finlease Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) (c) PCIT Vs. Rishikesh Buildcon Private Limited (2023) 451 ITR 108 (Delhi) 12. With these submissions, Ld. AR prayed to quash the penalty-orders as time-barred. 13. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that in Para 20.5 of assessment-order, there is no initiation of penalty-proceedings

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Capital & Finlease Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 614 (Delhi) (c) PCIT Vs. Rishikesh Buildcon Private Limited (2023) 451 ITR 108 (Delhi) 12. With these submissions, Ld. AR prayed to quash the penalty-orders as time-barred. 13. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that in Para 20.5 of assessment-order, there is no initiation of penalty-proceedings

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

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

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

13,460/- inclusive of taxable capital gain of Rs. 27,85,291/- from sale of an immovable property. The AO processed assessee’s return u/s 143(1) after assessing total income at Rs. 70,93,460/- inclusive of taxable capital gain of Rs. 61,65,291/-. In effect, the AO made an addition/upward adjustment

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

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

c) Aditya Oil & Chemicals Ltd, ITA No.4878/Mum/2010, dated 08.02.12 (Mumbai ITAT): “Now the revenue grounds are left for adjudication. Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue reads as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO not to reduce the WDV of the assets

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

c) Aditya Oil & Chemicals Ltd, ITA No.4878/Mum/2010, dated 08.02.12 (Mumbai ITAT): “Now the revenue grounds are left for adjudication. Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue reads as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO not to reduce the WDV of the assets

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

c) Aditya Oil & Chemicals Ltd, ITA No.4878/Mum/2010, dated 08.02.12 (Mumbai ITAT): “Now the revenue grounds are left for adjudication. Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue reads as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO not to reduce the WDV of the assets

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

c) Aditya Oil & Chemicals Ltd, ITA No.4878/Mum/2010, dated 08.02.12 (Mumbai ITAT): “Now the revenue grounds are left for adjudication. Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue reads as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO not to reduce the WDV of the assets

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

c) Aditya Oil & Chemicals Ltd, ITA No.4878/Mum/2010, dated 08.02.12 (Mumbai ITAT): “Now the revenue grounds are left for adjudication. Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue reads as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO not to reduce the WDV of the assets

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

c) Aditya Oil & Chemicals Ltd, ITA No.4878/Mum/2010, dated 08.02.12 (Mumbai ITAT): “Now the revenue grounds are left for adjudication. Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue reads as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO not to reduce the WDV of the assets

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

c) Aditya Oil & Chemicals Ltd, ITA No.4878/Mum/2010, dated 08.02.12 (Mumbai ITAT): “Now the revenue grounds are left for adjudication. Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue reads as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO not to reduce the WDV of the assets

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

c) Aditya Oil & Chemicals Ltd, ITA No.4878/Mum/2010, dated 08.02.12 (Mumbai ITAT): “Now the revenue grounds are left for adjudication. Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue reads as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO not to reduce the WDV of the assets

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

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 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 16.10.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

1.\n10. Now, we turn to the second issue raised in Ground No. 3 which calls\nfor our adjudication as to whether or not the impugned land sold by\nassessee was 'agricultural'?\n11. The AO has noted in Para 11 of assessment-order that the assessee\nsold impugned land through registered-deeds dated 29.08.2013/06.03.2014\nto purchaser ‘M/s Parsvnath Builders