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

Capital Gain transaction and itsexemption u/s 10(38) read with Section 2(29A) and Section 2(29B). We may also

KANHAIYA LAL PANCHAL,RATLAM vs. BPL-W-(91)(95), RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2024-25 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Bpl-W-(91)(95) 1, Jadwasa Kala, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqrpp0055D Assessee By Shri Kaide Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

capital gains taxable under section 112. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in placing reliance on the "Memorandum explaining provisions of the Finance Bill, 2025" as a basis for interpretation, even Page 2

DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI PRAKASH BHOJWANI, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Shri Prakash Bhojwani, 1(1), H.No. 7, Parika Phase-I, Bhopal Walmi Road, बनाम/ Chuna Bhatti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue / Respondent) (Assessee / Appellant) Pan: Abvpb 8825 E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

capital gain on sale of a land which was duly assessed by AO in original scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3). The facts also make it clear that the land sold by assessee was long-term in terms of provisions of section 2

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 Shri Sunil sharma provisions of capital gain should be attracted on the sale of property to which the assessee replied that the alleged transactions is in the nature of gift and the same is not treated as transfer for the purpose of computing capital gain as provided in section

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

2 years in section 54B which is not disputed by AO. However, the sole reason of denial of exemption u/s 54B as assigned by AO in assessment- order is such that assessee did not follow the procedure of depositing capital gain

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

section 45; and for the purpose of computing in respect any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase, the cost shall be reduced, by the amount of the capital gain] (2

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

Section 2(15), mean activity undertaken with a view to make or earn profit. Profit motive is determinative and a critical factor to discern whether an activity is business, trade or commerce.' The court further held:-- Page 6 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 7 of 22 "22. Business activity has an important pervading element of self

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

Section 2(15), mean activity undertaken with a view to make or earn profit. Profit motive is determinative and a critical factor to discern whether an activity is business, trade or commerce.' The court further held:-- Page 6 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 7 of 22 "22. Business activity has an important pervading element of self

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

Section 2(15), mean activity undertaken with a view to make or earn profit. Profit motive is determinative and a critical factor to discern whether an activity is business, trade or commerce.' The court further held:-- Page 6 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 7 of 22 "22. Business activity has an important pervading element of self

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

Section 2(15), mean activity undertaken with a view to make or earn profit. Profit motive is determinative and a critical factor to discern whether an activity is business, trade or commerce.' The court further held:-- Page 6 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 7 of 22 "22. Business activity has an important pervading element of self

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

section 2(14)(iii)(b) and therefore the lands were excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' and the resultant capital gain

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

gainfully referred the decision\nof ITAT, Ahmedabad in Shri Bhanushali Mitra Mandal Trust Vs. ITO,\nITA No. 2515/Ahd/2015 dated 22.02.2016 where it was held thus:\n\n\"7.1 To examine the first issue, necessarily I have to analyze the\nrelevant provision, namely, the amendment to Section 12A by Finance\nAct, 2014 w.e.f. 01.10.2014 by way of insertion of provisos

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

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

section 45(1)/48, the capital gain has to be\nworked out after deducting costs/exemption but we are concerned with the\nissue for examination in limited scrutiny. The issue No. (ii) mentioned by AO\nin the notice u/s 143(2

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

capital gain, the income would be charged in terms of provisions of Sub Section (1) of Section 54. As per Sub-Section (2

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

2)(1), Mumbai (2019) 104 taxmann.com 208 (Bombay) to\ncontend that the provision of section 50C must be given full effect; that the\nprovision of section 50C is relevant not only for computation of capital gain

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

section 2(14)(iii)(a) would qualify only \"the\nmunicipality or cantonment\" and not the expression \"area\"\nand therefore, the capital gains

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 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

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 purchased 10000 10000 10000 10000 Purchase price per share Rs. 2