SMT SHILPA DESAI ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Desai, Indore Pan – Abzpd 4926 A … Appellant Vs. Pcit-I, Indore … Respondent

section 139, before furnishing such return in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified. In the case of assessee, we find the assessee has duly deposited an amount of Rs 5,01,95,000/- in the Capital Gain Account scheme Account maintained with Bank of Baroda A/c No.05000100020462. Details of the same were also produced

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.

section 196 of IDS 2016 is not applicable on the Assessee. In addition to above, we further submit that the Assessee disclosed in Form 1 of description column that the undisclosed money was applied for earning income from long term capital gain and the said declaration by the Assessee was accepted by Principal Commissioner/Commissioner in Form 4 under

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain if, at all, is not eligible to tax. ITA No. 117/Ind/2021 (Gunveer Singh Chhabra vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 8 11. On the other hand, apart from relying upon the certificate issued by the SDM , the Revenue has come up with the further case that the aerial distance of the land in question from the Municipal limit

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. 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

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 detail and accordingly, the assessment order was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue by the Ld. PCIT. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the jurisdiction of Ld. PCIT assumed u/s 263 of the Act. 6. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SANJEEV AGRAWAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

183 CTR (Raj) 144 wherein it was held that assessee admits that he is Shri Sanjeev Agrawal Page 3 of 48 disclosing undisclosed income at his free will without any threat and express his inability of submit any documentary evidence during the search proceedings then subsequent contention of the assessee that the income found during the search proceedings in genuine

M/S. YATHARTH INFRASTRUCTURES (P) LTD.,UJJAIN vs. PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

183 (Gujarat). It was further argued by him that upon considering the entire documents, and upon examining different memos issued by different authorities clarifying the distance of the land and upon exhaustive enquiry, the Ld. AO has finalized the assessment accepting the return filed by the assessee which is evident from the assessment order itself and also from the noting

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

183 (Gujarat). It was further argued by him that upon considering the entire documents, and upon examining different memos issued by different authorities clarifying the distance of the land and upon exhaustive enquiry, the Ld. AO has finalized the assessment accepting the return filed by the assessee which is evident from the assessment order itself and also from the noting

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

183 (Gujarat). It was further argued by him that upon considering the entire documents, and upon examining different memos issued by different authorities clarifying the distance of the land and upon exhaustive enquiry, the Ld. AO has finalized the assessment accepting the return filed by the assessee which is evident from the assessment order itself and also from the noting

SHRI PRASHANT AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -I , BHOPAL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

183 (Gujarat). It was further argued by him that upon considering the entire documents, and upon examining different memos issued by different authorities clarifying the distance of the land and upon exhaustive enquiry, the Ld. AO has finalized the assessment accepting the return filed by the assessee which is evident from the assessment order itself and also from the noting

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

183/-). We re-produce below the entire assessment-order passed by AO, out of which Para 4 is related to the impugned disallowance: Page 2 of 13 M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15 Page 3 of 13 M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys

BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal

THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI VINOD VAISH, BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal

SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA PARASHAR,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 250(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not giving a notice to the Assessing Officer of the date and place for the hearing the appeal, 2. Not following the provisions of section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard at the hearing of the appeal