KUMARI AYUSHI NYATI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

17. Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan Vs. DCIT- Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai “D” Bench) – (2020) (Pages 257 - 276 of Case Laws Paper Book) 18. Ashok Agrawal & Others V/s ACIT, Jaipur, I.T.A.T. ITA No.124/JP/20 & others dated 18.11.2020. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate

SMT VIJAYA NYATI, DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

17. Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan Vs. DCIT- Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai “D” Bench) – (2020) (Pages 257 - 276 of Case Laws Paper Book) 18. Ashok Agrawal & Others V/s ACIT, Jaipur, I.T.A.T. ITA No.124/JP/20 & others dated 18.11.2020. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate

VIJAY RADHESHYAM NYATI HUF,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

17. Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan Vs. DCIT- Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai “D” Bench) – (2020) (Pages 257 - 276 of Case Laws Paper Book) 18. Ashok Agrawal & Others V/s ACIT, Jaipur, I.T.A.T. ITA No.124/JP/20 & others dated 18.11.2020. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate

SMT. MAMTA NYATI DHAMNOD DISTT. DHAR,DHAMNOD vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

17. Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan Vs. DCIT- Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai “D” Bench) – (2020) (Pages 257 - 276 of Case Laws Paper Book) 18. Ashok Agrawal & Others V/s ACIT, Jaipur, I.T.A.T. ITA No.124/JP/20 & others dated 18.11.2020. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

17 Krishna Mohan Chourasia compensation received on compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural land is exempt from tax as per section 10(37) of the Act subject to conditions specified therein. However, since land compulsorily acquired by the Government in the present case was a rural agricultural land, there arises no question of taxability of capital gain on compulsory acquisition

SHRI NILESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

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

2. As accepted by both the parties the issues raised and facts involved in all these four appeals are common, therefore it was decided to hear all these appeals together and are being disposed off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ayush Jain Assessment

PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

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

2. As accepted by both the parties the issues raised and facts involved in all these four appeals are common, therefore it was decided to hear all these appeals together and are being disposed off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ayush Jain Assessment

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

2(29B). We may also state here that in the assessee's transaction of LTCG, the sale consideration received is Rs.7,82,75,591 pursuant to sale of Listed Scripts of Sunrise between 19.09.2013 - 25.03.2014 and the amount of capital gain as computed by the assessee is Rs.7,51,07,591/- after taking into consideration the cost of purchases

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

2(47)(i) of the Act but this being a definition of ‘transfer’ is applicable to whole of the income tax wherever the word ‘transfer’ is mentioned. However for the purpose of computing capital gain the hurdle of section 47 needs to be cleared before computing capital gain. Section 47(iii) states that nothing contained in section 45 shall apply

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

section 263 of the Act 1 Guideline value at the time of sales was of Rs 1,30,20,000/- whereas the appellant has offered the same at Rs 97,65,000/- 2 FDR’s as prepared for Rs 46,13,000/- was on account of capital gain scheme or not was not examined by the assessing officer 3 Deduction

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

capital gain of Rs. 2,03,51,964/-. The facts regarding the sale of agricultural land and purchase of new agricultural land by the assessee are not in dispute but the claim of the assessee was denied by the AO in respect of the agricultural land purchased by the assessee in the name of family members being wife, daughters

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

capital expenses to be able to sustain and continue in long run. The petitioner has to be substantially self-sustaining in long-term and should not depend upon government, in other words taxpayers should not subsidize the said activities, which nevertheless are charitable and fall under the residuary clause ―general public utilityǁ. The impugned order does not refer

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

capital expenses to be able to sustain and continue in long run. The petitioner has to be substantially self-sustaining in long-term and should not depend upon government, in other words taxpayers should not subsidize the said activities, which nevertheless are charitable and fall under the residuary clause ―general public utilityǁ. The impugned order does not refer

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

capital expenses to be able to sustain and continue in long run. The petitioner has to be substantially self-sustaining in long-term and should not depend upon government, in other words taxpayers should not subsidize the said activities, which nevertheless are charitable and fall under the residuary clause ―general public utilityǁ. The impugned order does not refer

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

capital expenses to be able to sustain and continue in long run. The petitioner has to be substantially self-sustaining in long-term and should not depend upon government, in other words taxpayers should not subsidize the said activities, which nevertheless are charitable and fall under the residuary clause ―general public utilityǁ. The impugned order does not refer

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

17. The explanation as given in the affidavit in support of the\napplication for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioners in the High\nCourt does not make out sufficient cause for condonation of the\ninordinate delay of 337 days in filing the appeal under Section 37 of\nthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The law of limitation binds\neverybody including

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

17,111/-) without giving\nproper opportunity for production/verification of evidences, related therewith.\n\n4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was\nnot justified to confirm the addition made by Ld. AO by ignoring the claim for\nloss from business amounting to Rs 6,29,230/- which is duly supported by\nAudited

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