DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

section 50C. The AO has accepted the capital gain declared by assessee and thus committed an error while completing assessment. 4. Accordingly, Ld. PCIT issued a show-cause notice dated 04.09.2019 by which the assessee was asked to explain as to why the assessment-order may not be revised. In response thereto, the assessee filed submission which is re-produced

SHRI VINOD CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. ITO1 3), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Vinod Choudhary, Ito 1(3) 12, Niranjanpur, Indore Vs. Lasudia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akrpv 4892 Q Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bomb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

140/- but without declaring the impugned capital gain. During assessment-proceeding, the assessee submitted that the transaction of sale had taken place in AY 2011-12 and not in AY 2012-13. But, however, the Ld. AO did not accept the submission of assessee and completed assessment after making an addition of Rs. 1,07,93,900/-, being 1/4th share

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

capital Gain arose in the year in which the deed was registered. It is however to be noted that the decision was with reference to the chargeability under section 45 wit 'reference to transfer as defined e amendment under the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1984 with effect from 1.4.1985 and the Finance Bill 1987 with effect from 1988. Sheetal Garg

SARWAR MOHD. KHAN,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground itself

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09

Capital Gain. 1.6 Learned CIT (A) vide his order dated 31.3.2016 dismissed ground no. 1 by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Biju Patnaik. As regard addition of Rs. 39,40,000/- (38,00,000/- + Rs. 1,00,000/-) he dismissed the ground by holding that the assessee has preferred

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

capital gains by the assessee, given the fact that the assessee failed to submit the most basic details pertaining the share transactions such as quantity purchased and sold, rate of purchase and sale, frequency of transactions, etc.?” 5. The brief fact leading to the case is this that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged, in the business

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

capital gains by the assessee, given the fact that the assessee failed to submit the most basic details pertaining the share transactions such as quantity purchased and sold, rate of purchase and sale, frequency of transactions, etc.?” 5. The brief fact leading to the case is this that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged, in the business

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

LATE SMT SUSHILA BISARYA, BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023

Capital Gain calculated by the assessee. Also no query was raised by the AO with regard to documentary evidence regarding cost of construction incurred by the assessee nor the same was furnished by the assessee during assessment." 8. It is pertinent to note that when the AO while passing the reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) on 31st July

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 54 F as per which, on the facts of the case, the assessment of Long Term Capital gain has to be made in the assessment year 2012-13. 10.The Appellant prays to alter, to amend, to delete the above grounds as and when occasion arises.” 2. Brief facts, giving rise to present appeal are that the assessment

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 54 F as per which, on the facts of the case, the assessment of Long Term Capital gain has to be made in the assessment year 2012-13. 10.The Appellant prays to alter, to amend, to delete the above grounds as and when occasion arises.” 2. Brief facts, giving rise to present appeal are that the assessment

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

140 taxmann.com 394 as well as judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Killick Nixon Ltd. vs. DCIT 125 taxmann 1055 (SC) and submitted that where the assessee has settled its case under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the provision of section 263 cannot be invoked for revising the assessment order. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

MEERA BAI CHOUHAN ,INDORE vs. ITO 1 (4), INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2011-12 Shri Ram Singh Chouhan Ito 1(4) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Byjpc4571L Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan Ito 1(4) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Duppb1243A Revenue By Shri H.N. Joshi, Ar Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeals At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income

capital gain after claiming the benefit if any pertaining to index cost of acquisition, cost of improvement (if any) and the amount applied for purchase of other agricultural land as provided in section 54B of the Act and the same shall be examined by the ld. AO as per the Provision of Income Tax Act. Needless to mention that assessee

SHRI RAM SHINGH CHOUHAN ,INDORE vs. ITO 1(4), INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2011-12 Shri Ram Singh Chouhan Ito 1(4) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Byjpc4571L Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan Ito 1(4) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Duppb1243A Revenue By Shri H.N. Joshi, Ar Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeals At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income

capital gain after claiming the benefit if any pertaining to index cost of acquisition, cost of improvement (if any) and the amount applied for purchase of other agricultural land as provided in section 54B of the Act and the same shall be examined by the ld. AO as per the Provision of Income Tax Act. Needless to mention that assessee

THE DY. CIT 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. RYDER TRANS INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2012-13

140- CIT vs Hotel Where assessee firm had received an 143 Hilltop 18 advance from a company and it was taxmann.com 308 assessee’s partners who were share (Raj.) holders in said company and not assessee-firm, such an advance could not be taxed as deemed dividend in hands of assessee-firm. 5 CIT Vs Daisy Where assessee-company

SHRI NARAYAN DAS TOLANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

capital gains had already been taxed in assessment year 1962-63 when land was acquired, directed ITO to bring it to tax in current assessment year. Such directions of the ld. CIT(A) were held to be unsustainable. We find that in Onkar Nath, 64 ITR 347 (All.), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that the law gives

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

140 of paper book vol.II wherein cash sales of Rs.1,80,000/- was recorded and got tallied.\n\n3.4 The Ld. AR then pleaded that the Ld. A.O has accepted the books of the assessee. The Ld. A.O has not rejected the purchase and the stock. The purchase details(Amount wise list of purchasers) and stock details (Quantitative details