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

capital gains were clearly available before the\nAssessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings and that the\nRevenue had not brought any material before it, which was not disclosed by\nthe assessee in the original return of income. Thus, the Tribunal concluded\nthat there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material\nfact relevant

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

148 which was completed vide order dated 07.10.2015 u/s 147 after making following modifications/ adjustments: (i) Income of Rs. 57,28,867/- originally assessed as short-term capital gain u/s 111A is re-characterized as Business income. (ii) Income of Rs. 86,88,960/- originally assessed as long-term capital gain is re-characterised as Income from Other Source

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

148 of the Act assessee also filed objections to the reason recorded for reopening and the same were duly dealt by the ld. AO. Necessary notice u/s 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

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

DB POWER LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Db Power Limited, Acit, Central Circle-1, बनाम/ Office Block, 1A, Bhopal Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit, Central Circle-1, M/S Db Power Limited, बनाम/ Bhopal Office Block, 1A, Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

capital expenditure by the appellant.” Page 6 of 26 M/s DB Power Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 68/Ind/2023 and 73/Ind/2023- A.Y. 2015-16 4. Ld. AR for assessee started pleadings qua Ground No. 1(a), 1(c) and 1(d). In these grounds, the assessee assails the AO’s action of issuance of notice u/s 148 as well as passing

THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DB POWER LTD, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Db Power Limited, Acit, Central Circle-1, बनाम/ Office Block, 1A, Bhopal Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit, Central Circle-1, M/S Db Power Limited, बनाम/ Bhopal Office Block, 1A, Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

capital expenditure by the appellant.” Page 6 of 26 M/s DB Power Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 68/Ind/2023 and 73/Ind/2023- A.Y. 2015-16 4. Ld. AR for assessee started pleadings qua Ground No. 1(a), 1(c) and 1(d). In these grounds, the assessee assails the AO’s action of issuance of notice u/s 148 as well as passing

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

148 on 22.03.2016 to re- open the assessment of assessee. Ultimately, the AO completed assessment determining taxable capital gain at Rs. 32,32,461/- and thereby making an addition of Rs. 30,46,354/-, being the differential of capital gain Rs. 32,32,461/- determined by AO and the capital gain of Rs. 1,86,107/- already declared by assessee

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

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

148 of the Act even when information. was received during the course of search and notice ought to be issued under section 153C of the Income Tax Act. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing officer erred in calculating the amount of long-term capital gain on transfer of Agricultural

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

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

148 on the ground that the assessee has earned suspicious long term capital gain by taking bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma

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

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

148 on the ground that the assessee has earned suspicious long term capital gain by taking bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma

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

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

148 on the ground that the assessee has earned suspicious long term capital gain by taking bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma

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

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

148 on the ground that the assessee has earned suspicious long term capital gain by taking bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma

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

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

148 on the ground that the assessee has earned suspicious long term capital gain by taking bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma

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

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

148 on the ground that the assessee has earned suspicious long term capital gain by taking bogus entries through manipulation in stock market. It was further inferred that the assessee has taken benefit of section 10(38) by engaging in long term capital gain on sale of shares of VAS Infra. The has neither earned any 10 Shivnarayan Sharma

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

RAJESH BIRTHARE,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

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

section 2(47)(v) just to deny the exemption claimed u/s 54F & 54B. The A.O had failed to appreciate that the transaction of the assessee not only falls under provision (v) of sec. 2(47) but it is also squarely covered under provision (i), (ii) and (vi) of sec. 2(47). (e) That the AO had erred in non relying