ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

capital gains. The Honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi (Supra) has categorically stated that the amounts received by the retiring partner are neither chargeable to tax under section 28(iv) nor under section 28(v). Therefore, the findings 16 Shri Rajul Bhargava, Indore & otr. rendered by the ITSC in the assessees’ own case on this

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

capital gains. The Honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi (Supra) has categorically stated that the amounts received by the retiring partner are neither chargeable to tax under section 28(iv) nor under section 28(v). Therefore, the findings 16 Shri Rajul Bhargava, Indore & otr. rendered by the ITSC in the assessees’ own case on this

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

capital gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective assessment has to be done only after substantive assessment is done

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

gain earned on sale of equity shares at Rs.24,39,177/- was claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 19.04.2021based on information received from SEBI, regarding purchase/sale transactions in equity shares of M/s.Goyenka Business and Finance Limited on the ground that such scrip was“Penny stock

SMT. USHADEVI MANSINGAHKA,BHILWADA vs. AYAKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Ushadevi Mansinghka Ito-1 बनाम/ Mansinghka House, Gangapur Khandwa Vs. Chouraha Bhilwada (Rajasthan) (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aeepm1258G Appellant By Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca Revenue By Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 20.03.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 23.12.2016 By Ito- Khandwa.

Capital Gain which was exempt under section 10(38) of Income Tax Act. Further it is submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Indore contended on this fact stating that Section 196 of IDS 2016 is applicable in this case as mentioned on Page no.2 of the Appellate Order, however as per the F AQs in Circular no.17

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

gain arising from transfer of such capital asset has to be charged only under the provisions of s.45 of the Act. We find merit in the argument of the AR that under provisions of clause (b) of section 153A

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

gain arising from transfer of such capital asset has to be charged only under the provisions of s.45 of the Act. We find merit in the argument of the AR that under provisions of clause (b) of section 153A

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

gain arising from transfer of such capital asset has to be charged only under the provisions of s.45 of the Act. We find merit in the argument of the AR that under provisions of clause (b) of section 153A

SMT SADHNA VOHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO 1(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gain arising out of sale of 3 acres of land to Future Soumya Housing was already offered for tax in the assessment year 2012-13. It is argued that no reliance can be made on the document executed for transfer of land in the year under appeal. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the assessee that the impugned

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain on sale of shares at Rs.3,67,49,555/- and claimed as exempt. In a statement made under 132(4) of the Act the assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs.15 crores as undisclosed money, and out of which in the return filed in response to the notice under section 153A

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain on sale of shares at Rs.3,67,49,555/- and claimed as exempt. In a statement made under 132(4) of the Act the assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs.15 crores as undisclosed money, and out of which in the return filed in response to the notice under section 153A

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain on sale of shares at Rs.3,67,49,555/- and claimed as exempt. In a statement made under 132(4) of the Act the assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs.15 crores as undisclosed money, and out of which in the return filed in response to the notice under section 153A

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

153A] or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.] [Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval

SHANKAR SEWANI,NEW MARKET vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

capital gain arising from the sale of immoveable property. 6 Shankar Sewani 5. As regards the documents seized during the course of search operation in case of Signature Group the issue raised by the assessee cannot be decided conclusively in the absence of date of alleged search and seizure operation because in any case the proceedings u/s 153C could have

ANAND PRAKASH KAMDAR,BHOPAL vs. ACIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Anand Prakash Kamdar Acit-1(1) E-4/188, Bhopal बनाम/ Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Afopk0788A Assesseeby S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv.& Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

capital gain of Rs. 36,76,886/- derived from sale of urban agricultural land and claiming exemption of Rs. 36,76,886/- u/s 54B on the basis of investment made in another agricultural land and thereby offering taxable gain at Rs. Nil, which was accepted by the authorities. Thereafter, during the course of search- proceeding undertaken by department, a document