SHRI KAILASH BHAGWAN CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

gain which is not utilised by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

capital gain 44,81,373 5 Addition of amounts paid by WCS 35,50,000 6 Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed income 8,42,92,165 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances made by AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal on various grounds assailing

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 54F, the investment in the residential house should be made in the assessee's name and in as much as the residential house was purchased by the assessee in the name of his wife, the deduction was not allowable. He reduced the deduction and computed the capital gains accordingly. 5. On appeal, the CIT (Appeal) accepted the assessee

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

section 158BC in the case of 'R' did not survive at all since it had been struck down being time barred. The additions made on substantive basis had not been decided by deleting the same from assessee's individual hands rather they were thrown along with the block assessment order, meaning thereby, there was no substantive addition in existence

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 50C of the Act of Rs.35,46,018/-. The A.O. made addition of Rs.3,70,000/- in respect of the loans taken from his children. Further, the A.O. made disallowance of interest paid on term loan of Rs.9,38,756/-, disallowance of agricultural income of Rs.2 lakhs, cash deposited in the bank of Rs.7 lakhs, purchase of shares

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 50C of the Act of Rs.35,46,018/-. The A.O. made addition of Rs.3,70,000/- in respect of the loans taken from his children. Further, the A.O. made disallowance of interest paid on term loan of Rs.9,38,756/-, disallowance of agricultural income of Rs.2 lakhs, cash deposited in the bank of Rs.7 lakhs, purchase of shares

M/S SIDDHULA;L,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

gain assessed by AO at Rs. 46,13,227/-. Ld. AR for assessee made certain Page 2 of 14 M/s.Siddhulal Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(2), Bhopal ITA No. 110/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12 specific pleadings qua these grounds and we confine our adjudication to the pleadings made before us and argued by both sides. Ld. AR pointed out that

GENDALAL JADHAV,INDORE vs. ITO-1(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigendalal Jadhav, Ito 1(1) 168-G Palakhedi, Gandhi Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Nagar Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aphpj4675K Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2024 O R D E R

gain. However, the AO disallowed the said claim of deduction on the ground that the assessee has not produced any supporting evidence despite sufficient opportunity is given. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has reiterated its claim but could not succeed. The CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO on the ground that the assessee

NEERA KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

192, Prabhu Nagar, Bhopal बनाम/ Idgah Hills, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN:AGMPK 6962 H Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 12.12.2022 / 13.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 28.03.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by revision-order dated 09.12.2019passed

M/S SWADESH DEVLOPERS AND BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Capital Gain at Rs. 1,82,94,410/- but the ld. AO was of the view that the assessee being engaged in the real estate business, such income from sale of land needs to be taxed as business income and accordingly treated the income of the assessee as business income and calculated tax accordingly. Income of the assessee

M/S. BHASKAR INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

capital gains of Rs. 87,68,157/- to tax in the return of income. The case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and the assessment u/s 143 was completed on 25.02.2013 determining taxable income at Rs. 4,39,57,962/-. The Assessing Officer noticed from the balance sheet that the assessee had shown

THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL vs. M/S. BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

capital gains of Rs. 87,68,157/- to tax in the return of income. The case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and the assessment u/s 143 was completed on 25.02.2013 determining taxable income at Rs. 4,39,57,962/-. The Assessing Officer noticed from the balance sheet that the assessee had shown

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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 issue has been decided. The relevant paras of order are reproduced below: Page 19 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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 issue has been decided. The relevant paras of order are reproduced below: Page 19 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024

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

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

capital account. Brief facts relating to this ground are that during the financial year 2003- 04 relevant to Assessment Year 2004-05 assessee made some addition to its capital account in the sole propritaryship concern M/s Anand Organics which included withdrawal of Rs. 7,00,000/- from M/s Atul Solvo Chem wherein the assessee has partner Rs.2,50,000/- from

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

capital account. Brief facts relating to this ground are that during the financial year 2003- 04 relevant to Assessment Year 2004-05 assessee made some addition to its capital account in the sole propritaryship concern M/s Anand Organics which included withdrawal of Rs. 7,00,000/- from M/s Atul Solvo Chem wherein the assessee has partner Rs.2,50,000/- from

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

capital account. Brief facts relating to this ground are that during the financial year 2003- 04 relevant to Assessment Year 2004-05 assessee made some addition to its capital account in the sole propritaryship concern M/s Anand Organics which included withdrawal of Rs. 7,00,000/- from M/s Atul Solvo Chem wherein the assessee has partner Rs.2,50,000/- from