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

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

13 has\nobjected to the reference made by the Assessing Officer under 2nd proviso to\nsection 143(3) of the I.T. Act to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Central), Bhopal for cancellation of registration invoking provisions of section\n12AB(4) of the I.T. Act being introduced by Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f.\n01.04.2022 mainly on the following grounds:\nM/s

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

13,610/- under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as against the return income at Rs.49,130/-. 2.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and the facts of the case and confirmed the disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, at Rs.3,09,64,475/- without considering full facts and reasoning

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

3. Being aggrieved by the said order of CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us raising the following ground: The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in the interpretation of law and in the facts of the case by disallowing the claim of rebate of Rs.13,320/- under section

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

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

Section 2(29B). We may also state here that in the assessee's transaction of LTCG, the sale consideration received is Rs.7,82,75,591 pursuant to sale of Listed Scripts of Sunrise between 19.09.2013 - 25.03.2014 and the amount of capital gain as computed by the assessee is Rs.7,51,07,591/- after taking into consideration the cost of purchases

DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI PRAKASH BHOJWANI, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Shri Prakash Bhojwani, 1(1), H.No. 7, Parika Phase-I, Bhopal Walmi Road, बनाम/ Chuna Bhatti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue / Respondent) (Assessee / Appellant) Pan: Abvpb 8825 E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

13. The CIT(A) has dealt this issue in Para No. 9 of his order as under: “9. Ground Nos. 3 and 5 are against treating long term capital gain on transfer of land of Rs. 86,88,960/- as income from other sources. 9.1 The appellant had shown long term capital gain on transfer of land

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

3. Detail of the population of Village Lasudalya 4115 51 Ramnath as per last census from the date of sale From the perusal of the above, we find that agricultural lands purchased during the FYs 1978-79 and 1988-89 were rural agricultural lands and were not capital assets as per section

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

capital 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

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain so derived. Therefore, both the\nsections cannot be interpreted in same manner.\nWhereas Bombay High court final verdict is concerned, at para 13 of the order\nthe court clearly concludes its decision for the computation of exemption under\nsection 54EC and it is totally distinguishable with the facts of our case which we\nare dealing with meaning given

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

3 as not pressed. 6. Apropos to remaining grounds Ld. counsel for the assessee apart from referring to the paper book dated 01.10.2021 containing 19 pages and another paper book dated 04.10.2021 containing 5 pages vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions: 1.That the appellant along with four other co-owner relinquished his share in the land situated

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

3 29.03.2013 Ku. Iqra Khan (Minor) 21,85,420/ D/o Imran Khan 4 29.03.2013 Mr. Imran Khan (self) 69,55,000/- 5 29.03.2013 Faizan Khan (minor). 61,09,000/- S/o Imran Khan Total purchase value Rs.2,33,32,420 5.1 Thus, the assessee claimed that against the consideration as per the market value of Rs.2,55,00,000/- and long

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

13. In support of the case made out by the assessee the Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments :- (i) ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Swati Luthra (2020) 115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Trib.) (ii) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Arzoo Anand (2017) 3 ITJ Online 181 (Trib. – Indore) (iii) Delhi High Court in the case

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

13. In support of the case made out by the assessee the Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments :- (i) ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Swati Luthra (2020) 115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Trib.) (ii) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Arzoo Anand (2017) 3 ITJ Online 181 (Trib. – Indore) (iii) Delhi High Court in the case

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

13. In support of the case made out by the assessee the Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments :- (i) ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Swati Luthra (2020) 115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Trib.) (ii) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Arzoo Anand (2017) 3 ITJ Online 181 (Trib. – Indore) (iii) Delhi High Court in the case

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

13. In support of the case made out by the assessee the Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments :- (i) ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Swati Luthra (2020) 115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Trib.) (ii) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Arzoo Anand (2017) 3 ITJ Online 181 (Trib. – Indore) (iii) Delhi High Court in the case

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

13. In support of the case made out by the assessee the Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments :- (i) ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Swati Luthra (2020) 115 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi Trib.) (ii) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Arzoo Anand (2017) 3 ITJ Online 181 (Trib. – Indore) (iii) Delhi High Court in the case

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012- 13 respectively. 2. ITA No. 199/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken as the lead case. The disallowance of claim of long term capital gain