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

section 54B which is not disputed by AO. However, the sole reason of denial of exemption u/s 54B as assigned by AO in assessment- order is such that assessee did not follow the procedure of depositing capital gain in Capital Gain Deposit Scheme by the due date for filing of return u/s 139

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

capital gain was not utilized by the assessee for the purchase of new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139

KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: XXX Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— "net consideration", in relation to the transfer of a capital asset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer

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

139 (Trib. – Indore) in similar circumstances it was held by jurisdictional Indore Bench that where the Appellant has held the shares in demat account for a period less than one year the same have to be treated as gains arising from short term capital asset. Page 28 of 37 DCIT v. Ravi Arora Assessment year

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

Appeal is allowed

139 on 30.03.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.3,50,327/-.\nIn the return so filed, the assessee declared short-term capital gain of Rs.68,11,461/- from three transactions of sale of 5 pieces of agricultural land [details mentioned in Para 10 of assessment-order] situated at two locations, namely (i) Village – Kapalyakhedi, and (ii) Village - Palakhedi. The assessee

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

Capital Gain in return of income filed to department, Ld. AR asserted this mistake of assessee in open court with regret on behalf of assessee). Therefore, while Page 2 of 10 Subhash Chandra Agrawal ITA No. 354/Ind/2025 – AY 2019-20 processing return of assessee u/s 143(1), the AO invoked section 143(1)(a)(ii), adopted the figure

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

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

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

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

Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 24th December, 2018, whereby an addition u/s 68 of the Act was made Page 3 of 12 Himanshu Botadara, HUF, Indore vs. ITO,4(3), Indore. I.T.A.Nos. 155 & 156/Ind/2023 - A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 to the tune of Rs. 2,09,239/- being bogus long term capital gains. The assessee challenged

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

Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 24th December, 2018, whereby an addition u/s 68 of the Act was made Page 3 of 12 Himanshu Botadara, HUF, Indore vs. ITO,4(3), Indore. I.T.A.Nos. 155 & 156/Ind/2023 - A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 to the tune of Rs. 2,09,239/- being bogus long term capital gains. The assessee challenged

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

139; b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made: Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years. Provided further that assessment

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

capital gain of the appellant from sale of two immovable properties without granting legitimate deductions towards cost of acquisition, improvement and as also, transfer expenses genuinely incurred by the appellant and her husband. 8(i). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

139(1) of the Act. During the year under consideration the appellant sold a residential house for a sum of Rs. 18750000 and in turn has invested a sum of Rs. 13985500 for purchasing new residential house and paid the entire amount through Banking Chanel. As such had claimed exemption from payment of capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE vs. RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Ito-1(2), Rajendra Singh Yadav, Indore 112/12, Nanda Nagar, बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Talkies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Amkpy2261P Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2024

section 54B which is not disputed by AO. However, the sole reason of denial of exemption u/s 54B as assigned by AO in assessment-order is such that assessee did not follow the procedure of depositing capital gain in Capital Gain Deposit Scheme by the due date for filing of return u/s 139

SEEMA JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

section 50 C paid additional tax which did not automatically attract the penalty.” 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed her return of income of relevant AY 2012-13 u/s 139 on 31.10.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 44,42,012/- consisting of income from business and long-term capital gain

HITESH KUMAR BINDAL,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

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

section 143(3) wherein the AO treated the shares of KCLIPL as what is called “penny stock” and capital gain declared by assessee therefrom as managed or non-genuine. Accordingly, the AO made addition u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 9,21,930/- and Rs. 19,42,723/- (equivalent to the full value of sale consideration received by assessee