VISHAL GIFT CENTRE - LLP,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

sections": [ "139", "143(3)", "142(1)", "143(2)", "2(14)(iii)", "54B" ], "issues": "Whether the land sold was an agricultural land and not a capital asset, and the taxability of capital gains

DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI PRAKASH BHOJWANI, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Shri Prakash Bhojwani, 1(1), H.No. 7, Parika Phase-I, Bhopal Walmi Road, बनाम/ Chuna Bhatti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue / Respondent) (Assessee / Appellant) Pan: Abvpb 8825 E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

capital gain on sale of a land which was duly assessed by AO in original scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3). The facts also make it clear that the land sold by assessee was long-term in terms of provisions of section

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 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as against the return income at Rs.49,130/-. 2.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and the facts of the case and confirmed the disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, at Rs.3,09,64,475/- without considering full facts and reasoning. The addition made

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 28.12.2016 framed by ITO Rajgarh. The Assessee has raised the following revised grounds of appeal in ITANo.853/Ind/2017: “REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in In w, the Ld Assessing Officer erred in adopting the Fair Market

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

143(3) of the Act, then such assessment could not be\nreopened beyond four years unless and until there was a failure on the part of\nthe assessee to disclose any material fact. The Tribunal proceeded to take\nnote of the findings rendered by the CIT(A) on the issue regarding the relief\nsought for by the assessee under section

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

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

section 45(1)/48, the capital gain has to be\nworked out after deducting costs/exemption but we are concerned with the\nissue for examination in limited scrutiny. The issue No. (ii) mentioned by AO\nin the notice u/s 143

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 25.03.2015 framed by ITO-3(2), Bhopal. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Civil Construction. Return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 filed on 12.01.2011 declaring income

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "143(3)", "50C", "54", "54F", "45" ], "issues": "Whether the stamp duty valuation should be considered as full sale consideration for computing capital gains

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income from undisclosed sources. Since all the appeals relate to the same issue arising

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income from undisclosed sources. Since all the appeals relate to the same issue arising

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income from undisclosed sources. Since all the appeals relate to the same issue arising

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income from undisclosed sources. Since all the appeals relate to the same issue arising

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act towards Long Term Capital Gain on the listed equity shares treating it as income from undisclosed sources. Since all the appeals relate to the same issue arising

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

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

143(2)/142(1). During assessment-proceeding, the AO found that the assessee declared a taxable long-term capital gain on sale of an agricultural land made on 13.03.2015 at Rs. Nil after claiming exemption of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s 54EC on account of investment in bonds of REC and Rs. 91,57,000/- u/s 54 on account

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 148 was issued and the proceeding was carried by the Ld. AO. Upon verification of computation of income it was found that the assessee had shown exempt long term capital gain on purchase/sale of shares at Rs. 74,88,105/-. The assessee in total purchased 2,00,000 quantity of scrip of M/s. Splash Media Works Ltd. from

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 148 was issued and the proceeding was carried by the Ld. AO. Upon verification of computation of income it was found that the assessee had shown exempt long term capital gain on purchase/sale of shares at Rs. 74,88,105/-. The assessee in total purchased 2,00,000 quantity of scrip of M/s. Splash Media Works Ltd. from

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 148 was issued and the proceeding was carried by the Ld. AO. Upon verification of computation of income it was found that the assessee had shown exempt long term capital gain on purchase/sale of shares at Rs. 74,88,105/-. The assessee in total purchased 2,00,000 quantity of scrip of M/s. Splash Media Works Ltd. from