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

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

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

Section 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DEVI SINGH, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit

2(14) and\nassessed taxable long-term capital gain at Rs. 4,14,11,696/-. Aggrieved,\nthe assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) reversed\nAO's action and granted full relief. Now, the revenue has come in next\nappeal before us impugning the order passed by CIT(A).\n5. The grounds raised in this appeal

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

14. From perusal of section 47 as reproduced above in the preceding paras, it contemplates that nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to any transfer of capital asset under a gift or in irrecoverable trust. In the instant case addition has been made in the hands of assessee towards Short Term Capital Gain. Mechanism for Computation of income from

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

2(47) of the Act resulting in long term capital gain which had been rightly shown by the appeal in the return of income. If the AO was ,of the view that in absence of sale deed, capital gain was not chargeable, this could not have led to a conclusion that the entire consideration was income from other sources

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 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024- AY: 2015-16 submitted that the AO has assessed capital gain in the hands of assessee from sale of land without giving exemption u/s 54B but the assessee was 1/3rd co-sharer in the impugned capital gain and assessee’s brother “Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav” was another co-sharer having 1/3rd

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

2 of the section. The only dispute raised by the revenue is that the land was got registered in the name of his son. This fact is not disputed that the assessee was an old and illiterate person and never filed any return. At the same time, he was not having any other source of income also

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

section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and accordingly the assessee was not liable for any capital gain tax in respect

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

section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and accordingly the assessee was not liable for any capital gain tax in respect

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

14 of\ndecision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Jagdish C. Dhabalia Vs. Income-\ntax Officer, 25(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

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

14 of the Constitution of India. In order to save the Constitutional validity of the proviso, the same would have to be read down and interpreted in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would

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

14 of the Constitution of India. In order to save the Constitutional validity of the proviso, the same would have to be read down and interpreted in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would

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

14 of the Constitution of India. In order to save the Constitutional validity of the proviso, the same would have to be read down and interpreted in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would

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

14 of the Constitution of India. In order to save the Constitutional validity of the proviso, the same would have to be read down and interpreted in the context of Section 10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

14 pages and not\nbeing re-produced here for brevity.\n\n13.\nWe have considered the rival submissions and pleadings made by\nlearned Representatives of both sides orally and in writing and also\nconsidered the documents held on record.\n\n14.\nAt first, we re-produce section 253(5) of the Act which prescribes:\n\n“(5) The Appellate Tribunal

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DEVI SINGH, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani

2(14) and assessed taxable long-term capital gain at Rs. 4,14,11,696/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) reversed AO’s action and granted full relief. Now, the revenue has come in next appeal before us impugning the order passed by CIT(A). 5. The grounds raised in this appeal

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