ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

143(3) r.w. section 147 within a period of 10 days from the date of disposing of the objections of the assessee against the notice u/ 148 which is contrary to the procedure to be followed by the AO as directed by the Hon’ble High Court and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside. We order

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 (1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJEEV PATNI, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Ground no. 2 :- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (appeals) learned erred in not quashing the reassessment proceedings as illegal and void as the same were without issuing mandatory notice U/S 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Ground no. 3 :- On facts and circumstances

SHRI SANJEEV PATNI,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Ground no. 2 :- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (appeals) learned erred in not quashing the reassessment proceedings as illegal and void as the same were without issuing mandatory notice U/S 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Ground no. 3 :- On facts and circumstances

KANHAIYA LAL PANCHAL,RATLAM vs. BPL-W-(91)(95), RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2024-25 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Bpl-W-(91)(95) 1, Jadwasa Kala, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqrpp0055D Assessee By Shri Kaide Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

capital gain and income from other sources alongwith agricultural income of Rs. 2,74,118/-. The assessee opted under new tax regime u/s 115BAC, computed tax liability of Rs. 22,536/- but claimed rebate of Rs. 22,536/- u/s 87A and effectively offered “Nil” tax. The return filed by assessee was processed by AO u/s 143(1) wherein

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

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 2

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

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

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

Appeal is allowed

2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the capital gain was not taxable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["147", "148", "143

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

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction. The assesse challenged the action of the AO before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before the Tribunal the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assesse has submitted that

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction. The assesse challenged the action of the AO before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before the Tribunal the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assesse has submitted that

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction. The assesse challenged the action of the AO before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before the Tribunal the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assesse has submitted that

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction. The assesse challenged the action of the AO before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before the Tribunal the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assesse has submitted that

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

2(4), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2009-10, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: Original grounds raised in Form No. 36: 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO has made addition

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

gainfully referred the decision\nof ITAT, Ahmedabad in Shri Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust Vs. ITO,\nITA No. 2515/Ahd/2015 dated 22.02.2016 where it was held thus:\n\n\"7.1 To examine the first issue, necessarily I have to analyze the\nrelevant provision, namely, the amendment to Section 12A by Finance\nAct, 2014 w.e.f. 01.10.2014 by way of insertion of provisos

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

2)\nThe respondent\n(3)\nCIT\n(4)\nCIT(A)\n(5)\nDepartmental Representative\n(6)\nGuard File\nBy order\nSr. Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed a return declaring capital gains of Rs.1,14,233. The AO increased the capital gain to Rs.90,77,095 by considering the stamp duty value