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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

133(6) of\nthe 'Act' as well as while making statement u/s 131 of the 'Act'\nalthough it was not found fully convincible but from the facts so\nsurfaced it is evident that the buyer has not adequate source of fund\nto buy the property even at the consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. Hence,\nby no stretch of imagination

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

capital gain was not taxable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["147", "148", "143(3)", "54B", "2(14)(iii)(b)", "133(6)", "271(1)(c)"], "issues

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

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gainfully refer to the decision in the case of BEW Cable & Conductors Pvt Ltd in'lTA No.l070/Kol/2012 dated 03.02.2016 wherein on similar facts and circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had deleted the disallowance ofk loss incurred by the assessee in commodity transactions on NMCE during FY 2008-09, which was disallowed by the AO on the ground

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gainfully refer to the decision in the case of BEW Cable & Conductors Pvt Ltd in'lTA No.l070/Kol/2012 dated 03.02.2016 wherein on similar facts and circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had deleted the disallowance ofk loss incurred by the assessee in commodity transactions on NMCE during FY 2008-09, which was disallowed by the AO on the ground

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gainfully refer to the decision in the case of BEW Cable & Conductors Pvt Ltd in'lTA No.l070/Kol/2012 dated 03.02.2016 wherein on similar facts and circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had deleted the disallowance ofk loss incurred by the assessee in commodity transactions on NMCE during FY 2008-09, which was disallowed by the AO on the ground

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 133(6) of the Act, bank statement, Ledger account, copy of ITR, details of Director, Ledger account in assessee’s books and invoices in respect of Top Trade mercantile Pvt. Ltd. were duly submitted. Similarly documents in respect of the other party, namely, Satguru Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. were duly filed. Needless to mention that the same

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 133(6) of the Act, bank statement, Ledger account, copy of ITR, details of Director, Ledger account in assessee’s books and invoices in respect of Top Trade mercantile Pvt. Ltd. were duly submitted. Similarly documents in respect of the other party, namely, Satguru Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. were duly filed. Needless to mention that the same

PRATAP BAJAJ,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

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

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

MANORAMA DEVI SHARMA,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

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

Capital Gain from sale of equity shares has duly considered the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar V/s ITO (supra) and has decided against the revenue confirming the order of the Tribunal stating it to be the last fact finding authority who on the basis of evidence brought on record has rightly came

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

LATE SHRI KHEMRAJ PATIDAR (THROUGH WIFE AND LEGAL HEIR SMT. BHAGWATI PATIDAR),BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 2(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "144", "147", "148", "142(1)", "133(6)", "50C", "2(14)", "48", "55(2)(b)(i)" ], "issues": "Whether the land sold was an agricultural land exempt from capital gains

PRAGYA SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Pragya Saxena Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Awfps 9685 L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

section 50C are not applicable in case of the assessee. Contents of such reply were never discussed or disputed. No information was concealed in the return of income by the assessee, either.” Page 6 of 10 Pragya Saxena Assessment year 2012-13 Finally, Ld. AR carried us to the assessment-order wherein the Ld. AO has specifically noted that

SMT NARAYAN SUNDRA BAI,INDORE vs. ITO 2 (5), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Narayan Sundra Bai, Ito, 29, Maa Vihar Colony, 2(5), बनाम/ A.B.Road, Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Alzpb1024B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2023

capital gain earned by me should not be treated as non-genuine and should not be added in my total income. However, if still your honour has an adverse view, then please provide me copies of all the above mentioned searches/surveys/enquiries reports including the details/report of suspended operations of trading by SEBI so that I can go through the same

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