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

1 of the SCN, we would like to state that though your goodself has doubted the Page 21 of 51 ITANo.470/Ind/2023 Sadhuram Balani genuineness of the transactions on the basis of information received, it appears from the SCN that your goodself is not doubting the computation part of the Capital Gain transaction and itsexemption u/s 10(38) read with Section

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

1,000/5,000). We find that the Assessing Officer worked out the amount of capital gain on compulsory acquisition of part of the house of the assessee as under: Full value of consideration i.e. compensation received on compulsory acquisition of part of house – Rs.8,03,041/- Proportionate cost of part of the house demolished and compulsorily acquired by the Government

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

Appeals are allowed

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

131 on 01.04.2015 by the DDIT Investigation, Jaipur. The DDIT Jaipur vide letter dated 23.10.2015 informed the ACIT/AO about the contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the IT Act by the assessee and appropriate action under the provisions of the Act has to be initiated. Thus the initiation of penalty proceedings by issuing the show cause notice dated

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

Appeals are allowed

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

131 on 01.04.2015 by the DDIT Investigation, Jaipur. The DDIT Jaipur vide letter dated 23.10.2015 informed the ACIT/AO about the contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the IT Act by the assessee and appropriate action under the provisions of the Act has to be initiated. Thus the initiation of penalty proceedings by issuing the show cause notice dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

131 of the paper book. In the said scheme of merger/amalgamation as approved by the NCLT all the details of assets and liability as well as the payment towards goodwill was duly reported. The AO has referred to the provisions which are measures provided against the misuse of over valuation of the assets in the hand of the amalgamated companies/successor

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

131 and from there concluded that the assessee was not aware of the details of shares. 24. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) passed following order: “Ground No. 8: Page 27 of 37 DCIT v. Ravi Arora Assessment year 2011-12 8.0 This ground of appeal related to the disallowance of exemption of long term capital gains

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Capital gain as shown\nAdd: Unexplained Cash Deposit\nTotal assessed income u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act 1961\nRs.111387/-\nRs.44018/-\nRs.861000/-\nRs.928369/-\n[Emphasis supplied]\nNow, we re-produce the adjudication made by CIT(A) in first-appeal:\n\"5.1.2.\nThe appellant's arguments have been carefully considered. While\nthe appellant repeatedly asserts that the Assessing Officer (AO) should

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

131 on 19.01.2016 leaves no doubt about the fact that the said expenditure was incurred by the state unit of BJP in the election related activities and media campaign. The CIT(A) has dealt with this issue and decided the same in para 3.8.7 as under: 3.8.7 Most importantly. the appellant during assessment proceedings in support of his claim, that

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Section 2(14)(iii). The addition\nmade, therefore may very kindly be deleted.\n4\nThat the learned CIT(A] erred in maintaining addition\nRs.20,00,000/- made u/s 68. The addition so made being illegal\nand wrong, the same may very kindly be deleted.\n5\nThat the learned CIT(A) erred in maintaining addition\nu/s 68 of Rs.20

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

131 were issued to assessee. Ultimately, the AO issued notice dated 22.09.2017 u/s 142(1) in which he show-caused assessee for making addition on the basis of finding in search of “Nyati Group”. 11. With this factual matrix, Ld. AR contended that the AO received investigation report on 13.04.2016 and issued scrutiny notice

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

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

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

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers

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

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

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

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers

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)

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

1) was issued on 11.05.2018 and 07.09.2018 but the assessee has not furnished the required documents for examination of the transaction. After that the summons u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was also issued on 30.11.2018 for personal attendance of the assessee and asked to produce the documents. But the karta of the assessee has not attended

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

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

1) was issued on 11.05.2018 and 07.09.2018 but the assessee has not furnished the required documents for examination of the transaction. After that the summons u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was also issued on 30.11.2018 for personal attendance of the assessee and asked to produce the documents. But the karta of the assessee has not attended

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

capital work-fin-progress) and no depreciation was claimed against this cost in the return of income filed by the Assessee for the year under consideration. 5.4 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / T * PO pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble DRP, has erred by not taking cognizance

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

131 ITR 451 (SC), holding that an appellate authority has the power and duty to correct errors in the proceedings and to remit the matter for fresh adjudication so that justice is rendered in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions made on account of long-term capital gains by invoking section

SHRI MAYUR BANSAL,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)ANo

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

capital gain." 2. "On the fact and in the Circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- made by AO for A.Y. 2014-15 on account of undisclosed income ofundisclosed investment." 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition