LATE SHRI KHEMRAJ PATIDAR (THROUGH WIFE AND LEGAL HEIR SMT. BHAGWATI PATIDAR),BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 2(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gains on land sale and unexplained cash deposits. The original assessee had not filed a return, and the assessment was completed under Section 144

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

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

BIHARILAL,HOSHANGABAD vs. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC-DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Assessment Unit Of Income- Biharilal, Tax Department S/O Gaurishankar, 508, Ward No. 15, बनाम/ Shobhapur, Vs. Hoshangabad (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eonpb2765E Assessee By Ms. Saniya Farhaz Memon, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

144 are bad in law as well as on facts and are liable to be annulled. Ground3. The Learned A.O. has erred in computation of Long-term capital gain on fact that he has not considered the basic exemption limit of Rs. 2,50,000/- Ground4. The Learned A.O. has erred in taking the consideration for sale of land

SHRI MANISH KARWA,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimanish Jai Narayan Karwa Pr. Cit-1 9 Janki Nagar, Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain & Vibha Tiwari Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27 .07.2023

capital gain amounting to Rs. 9,60,41,245/- on sales of shares of Scan Steel Limited is assessed by the Income Tax Officer 5(1) Indore for which assessee has specifically made the request in writing which is reproduce by the Ld. Pr. CIT on page 4 First Para of his order, particularly when he is having charge

GEETA BAI,BERASIA vs. ITO 4(4) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

capital gain was exempt under section 54F since the appellant had Page 4 of 7 ITANos.303 to 305/Ind/2024 Geeta Bai constructed residential house out of the sale proceeds which is not considered by the CIT Appeals whilst passing the appellant order. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add to amend alter modify substitute withdrawal delete or rescind

GEETA BAI,BHOPAL vs. ITO 4(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

capital gain was exempt under section 54F since the appellant had Page 4 of 7 ITANos.303 to 305/Ind/2024 Geeta Bai constructed residential house out of the sale proceeds which is not considered by the CIT Appeals whilst passing the appellant order. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add to amend alter modify substitute withdrawal delete or rescind

GEETA BAI,BERASIA vs. ITO 4(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

capital gain was exempt under section 54F since the appellant had Page 4 of 7 ITANos.303 to 305/Ind/2024 Geeta Bai constructed residential house out of the sale proceeds which is not considered by the CIT Appeals whilst passing the appellant order. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add to amend alter modify substitute withdrawal delete or rescind

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

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani

144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] for assessment year [“AY”] 2010-11. Page 1 of 7 Devi Singh ITA Nos.20 & 201/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2010-11 (ii) I.T.A. No. 201/Ind/2024 is a penalty-appeal directed against order of first appeal dated 19.01.2024 passed by CIT(A) which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 29.09.2016 passed

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Capital Gains on Compulsory Acquisition) -Rs 24,79,657 2.Addition under Section 56 (Interest Income on Compensation) Rs.7,12,816 3. Income originally declared by the appellant-Rs. 1,75,380 6.4 After due consideration of all the facts available on record, the additions of Rs 31,92,473 are upheld as the appellant has failed to explain the nature

RAJESH BIRTHARE ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(4) , INDORE, INDORE

capital gains on transfer of the said both\nparcels of agriculture land sold for Rs. 1,63,58,000/- and Rs. 2,32,60,000/- and the\nPage 4 of 10\nShri Rajesh Birthare, Indore.\nITA No. 111 & 112/Ind/2024 – Α.Υ. 2012-13\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nentire sale proceed has also been added as her income vide order u/s 144/147

THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR SHAMBHUDAYAL AGRAWAL, INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2011-12 Acit 5(1) Shri Raj Kumar Indore Shambhudayal Agrawal बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Adcpa0468M Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By S/Shri C.P. Rawka & Veenus Rawka, Cas Date Of Hearing: 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iii, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Indore Dated 25.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 27.02.2014 Framed By Dcit-5(1) Indore.

144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, after making various additions at Rs.6,60,68,133/- and computing assessed income at Rs.6,72,67,543/- in the following manner:- 16. With the above remarks the income of the assessee is assessed as under:- Income as per return Rs. 11,99,410/ Add: Addition on account of undisclosed investment

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 ITA Nos. 290 & 460/Ind/2019 [M/s. Yaksha Infrastructure Co. P. Ltd.] Asst.Year.– 2011-12 - 2 - of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. These appeals are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 ITA Nos. 290 & 460/Ind/2019 [M/s. Yaksha Infrastructure Co. P. Ltd.] Asst.Year.– 2011-12 - 2 - of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. These appeals are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience

SUNITA GUPTA,INDORE vs. ACIT 2(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisunita Gupta Acit 2(1) 404 Suraj Villa Raipur 9/2 New Palasia Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adcpg 7885L Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

section 144 of the Act and the AO has made an addition of Rs.52,77,199/- u/s 68 of the Act which was declared by the assessee as long term capital gain

GANPAT SINGH,PIPLANI vs. ITO 3(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Ganpat Singh Ito 3(1) बनाम/ House No.67, Bhopal Vs. Khajuri Kalan, Piplani-B Sector, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Cuhps9954G Assessee By Ms. Saniya Farhaz Menon, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

144 assessing the full sale proceed of Rs. 45,28,000/- as taxable income of assessee by way of capital gain. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) through notice dated 13.12.2017 for imposition of penalty qua the income of 45,28,000/- assessed and ultimately imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,00,000/- vide penalty-order

URMILA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO,2(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

144 after\nmaking an addition of Rs.78,84,000/- on account of capital gain from sale\nof a property. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the capital gain assessed\nby AO is against the provision of section

ONEEL VERMA,NASHIK vs. ITO-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

section 144. The Assessing Officer treated the stamp duty value of the property amounting to ₹32,67,500/- as unexplained income / long-term capital gain