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

167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total income

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

167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total income

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

167 (Delhi-Trib) where the scrips of this particular 12 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 M/s. Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. was the actual subject matter. The relevant portion thereof is as follows:- 4. The brief facts are that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 31.07.2014 declaring total income

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

gains too. I think, the\nIncome-tax Officer also has a share of the burden of the onus, as the\ncase may be, to show as to under what head this income would fall\nand that the discharge of the burden or onus must be on acceptable\nmaterial and strong probabilities. I am, therefore, of the opinion that,\nin this

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

gain arising on sale of such land was also not eligible to tax. Hence, it becomes crystal clear that the Assessing Officer raised detailed and extensive queries during the course of reassessment proceedings itself to examine the amount claimed as exempt by the assesse in his income-tax return for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on account of proceeds realized

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

gain arising on sale of such land was also not eligible to tax. Hence, it becomes crystal clear that the Assessing Officer raised detailed and extensive queries during the course of reassessment proceedings itself to examine the amount claimed as exempt by the assesse in his income-tax return for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on account of proceeds realized

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

capital gains. In the face of this material on record, it is difficult to explain that the assessment order was made without making any enquiry into the goodwill account of Rs. 10,75,000. . . ." (p. 158) [Except the fact to be pleaded separately in this particular paragraph] 12. So far as the jurisdiction of the Ld.PCIT under Section

NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

167 (Delhi) (iv) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 3.2 Ld. AR has submitted that when the AO during the course of original assessment as well as reassessment proceedings made extensive inquiries and was satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee then the order passed by the AO cannot be held

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

gains from incidental business [Section (4A)]: Where a trust or an institution is also carrying on any business activity, the provisions of Section 11)1), (2), (3) and (3A) regarding exemption etc. shall not apply in respect of income earned from such business activity. However, if such business is incidental to the attainment of the objects of the trust/institution

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

gains from incidental business [Section (4A)]: Where a trust or an institution is also carrying on any business activity, the provisions of Section 11)1), (2), (3) and (3A) regarding exemption etc. shall not apply in respect of income earned from such business activity. However, if such business is incidental to the attainment of the objects of the trust/institution

RAMKANYA BAI, INDORE vs. ITO5(3), INDORE

In the result, ground no.2 of the concise ground or ground no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramkanya Bai Ito-5(3) C/O Pavan Ved, Indore Advocate, Income Tax 203 Shops Road Vs. 10/5 New Palasia Indore

capital gain. The relevant part of the order dated 07.01.2020 passed in the Misc. application in para 4 is as under: “4. We have heard the rival contentions perused the material available on records. We find force in the contention of assessee that the concise ground no.2(original ground No.10) regarding cost of acquisition of land sold was not specifically

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

SHRI MANJEET SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-3, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Manjeet Singh Bhatia Addl. Cit, Range-3 8/5, Bcc House Indore बनाम/ Manoramaganj Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Agjpb 0022 G Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023

gain, interest and agriculture. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued which were duly complied with. Finally, the Ld. AO passed order u/s 143(3) after making certain additions. Amongst those additions, one was of Rs. 1,84,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans taken by assessee

AATMA PRAKASH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaatma Prakash Mental Cit (Exemption), Health Foundation, Bhopal बनाम/ 738, Nehru Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aaoca9170A Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

capital gains which have not accrued or arisen to him. It would indeed be most harsh and inequitable to tax the assessee on income which has neither arisen to him nor is received by him, merely because he has carried out the contractual obligation undertaken by him. It is difficult to conceive of any rational reason why the Legislature should

M/S SHISHUKUNJ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,THE SHISHUKUNJ INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, GRAM JHALARIA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX. AAYKAR BHAWAN,

167 taxmann.com 646 (Ahmedabad Trib.)\n(ii)\nITAT, Ahmedabad in Anjuman E Nusratul Muslimin Tankaria Vs. CIT\n(2024) 162 taxmann.com 42 (Ahmedabad Trib.)\n16.\nWith above submissions, Ld. AR contended that the impugned order\npassed by Ld. PCIT(Central) cancelling the approval held by assessee is\ninvalid and must be quashed.\n17.\nPer contra, Ld. DR for revenue heavily

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

gainfully refer a recent decision of ITAT, Chennai in DCIT, Central Circle, 2(2), Chennai Vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai, ITA 785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 & C.O. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023, dated 13.03.2024 wherein an identical Page 16 of 33 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 issue has been decided. The relevant paras of order are re-produced below

M/S TRUBA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

gains of business\nwhich is not incidental to\nthe attainment of its\nobjectives or separate\nbooks of account are not\nmaintained by such\ntrust or institution in\nrespect of the business\nwhich is incidental to the\nattainment of its\nobjectives; or\n(c) the trust or institution\nhas applied any part of\nits income from the\nproperty held under