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

142(1) of the Act was also served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings qua the reason for which the assessee’s case was reopened. Ld. AO observed that there was a transaction of sale of immovable property wherein four co-owners relinquished their rights in the immovable property without receiving any sale consideration. Ld. AO observed

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

capital gains, as the scrutiny was limited to the 'value of consideration'. The Tribunal followed the precedent of Urban Improvement Co. (P) Ltd. and quashed the assessment framed beyond the scope of limited scrutiny.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "54F", "46A", "143(2)", "142

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

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

Capital Gain thereupon. The AO did not examine the apparent mismatch between the sale consideration of the property shown in the ITR and Sale consideration as per Stamp Valuation Authority which was clearly mentioned in the sale deed itself. The AO has, therefore, committed an error while completing the assessment.” [Emphasis added] 6. Then, Ld. PCIT also invoked Explanation

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 142(1) of the Act, as to why the amount deducted be not added to her income as long term capital gain

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

142(1) dated 23/11/16 the assessee\nwas required to furnish her reply by 28/11/16. On the given date Shri\nDeepak Soni and the assessee Smt. Harpreet Kaur appeared and\nfurnished copy of a sale agreement made on 20/12/08 between the\npurchaser Shri Rajesh Rathore and the Seller Smt. Harpreet Kaur. As\nper the said sale agreement Sale consideration

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

142(1) dated 03.12.2019 placed at page no.29 to 38 of the paper book and submitted that in para 1.8 to 1.8.3. the assessee has given computation of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 as well as capital gain. The assessee given the calculation of fair market value based on the reverse indexation method. The assessing Officer after considering relevant

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gains has been claimed correctly. The said notice dated 19.09.2017 is reproduced hereinbelow: ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani] Asst.Year.– 2016-17 - 7 - 9. Subsequently, on 04.06.2018, further notice under Section 142

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gains has been claimed correctly. The said notice dated 19.09.2017 is reproduced hereinbelow: ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani] Asst.Year.– 2016-17 - 7 - 9. Subsequently, on 04.06.2018, further notice under Section 142

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 as the valuation done by stamps authority of Rs. 58,66,100/- was higher than the actual consideration of Rs. 42,00,000/-. Placing reliance upon the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Smt. Kalyani Seetharaman Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 219/Chny/2022 dated 29.07.2022, the Ld. AR submitted that revision could not be done in such

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

section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 13. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify of any grounds before final date of hearing. Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, Following grounds of appeal in ITANo.489/Ind/2019 (Shri Pratap Bajaj):- 1. That

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

section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 13. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify of any grounds before final date of hearing. Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, Following grounds of appeal in ITANo.489/Ind/2019 (Shri Pratap Bajaj):- 1. That

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DEVI SINGH, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit

gain. The assessee argued that the land was rural agricultural land and not a capital asset as it was outside the municipal limits at the time of sale.", "held": "The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's argument that the land was rural agricultural land and not a capital asset. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that