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

Capital Gain considering the Relinquishment of Rights as transferred within meaning of section 2(47)(i) of the Income Tax Act. In this regard we draw your kind attention to our objections raised to the proceeding u/s 147

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

Capital Gain declared Rs.21,50,616/- Rs.23,94,924/- Rs 22,19,976/- - 7 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): IPO form Pg 33 to 40 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are I dentical and documents submitted are also same, thus, Ms. Swati Luthra’s (ITA No. 6480/Del/2017) case may be taken

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

Capital Gain declared Rs.21,50,616/- Rs.23,94,924/- Rs 22,19,976/- - 7 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): IPO form Pg 33 to 40 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are I dentical and documents submitted are also same, thus, Ms. Swati Luthra’s (ITA No. 6480/Del/2017) case may be taken

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

Capital Gain declared Rs.21,50,616/- Rs.23,94,924/- Rs 22,19,976/- - 7 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): IPO form Pg 33 to 40 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are I dentical and documents submitted are also same, thus, Ms. Swati Luthra’s (ITA No. 6480/Del/2017) case may be taken

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

Capital Gain declared Rs.21,50,616/- Rs.23,94,924/- Rs 22,19,976/- - 7 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): IPO form Pg 33 to 40 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are I dentical and documents submitted are also same, thus, Ms. Swati Luthra’s (ITA No. 6480/Del/2017) case may be taken

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

Capital Gain declared Rs.21,50,616/- Rs.23,94,924/- Rs 22,19,976/- - 7 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): IPO form Pg 33 to 40 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are I dentical and documents submitted are also same, thus, Ms. Swati Luthra’s (ITA No. 6480/Del/2017) case may be taken

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

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from the business of processing, preservation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from the business of processing, preservation

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from the business of processing, preservation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from the business of processing, preservation

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from the business of processing, preservation

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

147 through notice dated\n23.03.2016 u/s 148. In response, the assessee filed return declaring a total\nincome of Rs.1,11,387/- rounded off to Rs.1,11,390/- (consisting of\ntaxable capital gain of Rs.44,018/-, bank interest income of Rs.7,369/-\nand tuition income of Rs.60,000/-). The assessee declared taxable capital\ngain of Rs.44,018/- from sale

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

147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 after conducting necessary enquiries. and after due application of mind. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Pr. CIT erred in setting-aside the order as passed by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income

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

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

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

147 of the Act on the ground that appellant was indulged in manipulating the share price without any corroborative evidences against her is wholly unjustified, improper and bad in law. 04) Section 68: Issue: long term capital gain

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

147 read with section 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the act”] for assessment-year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: “1. That the order of AO is bad in law & wrong on facts. 2. (a) That the AO has erred in determining the long term capital gain

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

gains on transfer of agriculture land KH. NO. 165/1/2, TALAWALI CHANDA,\nINDORE(2.965 Hec) sold for Rs. 2,32,60,000/-.\nAlso the appellant case was re-opened by ITO 3(2) Indore under section 147 and\nnotice under section 148 was issued on 16-03-2018 by ITO 3(2), Indore for\ndetermining capital

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