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

D-MAT accounts. Therefore, it is incorrect notion of the Revenue that these shares are bogus shares, on the contrary these shares are genuine and lawfully issued share by the company by following the law and procedure in this regard. The Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon report of Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department which was conducted in Kolkata

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

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These four appeals by the assessee are directed against four separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC, Delhi all dated 18.10.2022 for A.Ys. 2011- 12, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. The assesse has raised common grounds in these four appeals except the quantum

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

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These four appeals by the assessee are directed against four separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC, Delhi all dated 18.10.2022 for A.Ys. 2011- 12, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. The assesse has raised common grounds in these four appeals except the quantum

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

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These four appeals by the assessee are directed against four separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC, Delhi all dated 18.10.2022 for A.Ys. 2011- 12, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. The assesse has raised common grounds in these four appeals except the quantum

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

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These four appeals by the assessee are directed against four separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC, Delhi all dated 18.10.2022 for A.Ys. 2011- 12, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. The assesse has raised common grounds in these four appeals except the quantum

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

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11 is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short ‘Ld. CIT]-2 Bhopal dated 05.03.2020 which is arising out of the order u/s Shri Sunil sharma 143(3) of the Income

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

D) vs. State of A.P. [2011 4 SCC 363(SC)]\n\niii)\nBalwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh [2010 8 SCC 685 (SC)]\n\niv)\nPathapati Subba Reddy vs. Special Deputy Collector [2024 SCC\nOnline SC 513 (SC)]\n\nv)\nBasawaraj & Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [2013 14\nSCC 81 (SC)\n\nvi)\nLala Mata Din vs. A. Narayan

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

MOHANLAL 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

D E R PER BENCH:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

D E R PER BENCH:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

D E R PER BENCH:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

D E R PER BENCH:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption

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

D E R PER BENCH:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption

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

22. First of all, let us understand the exact grievance of revenue carefully. In the return of income, the assessee declared having earned long-term capital gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Income-tax Act, from shares of Satyam Computer Services. During assessment-proceeding, the AO held the impugned capital gain as non-genuine and accordingly made addition

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

d) of section 269UA. Explanation 2- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that. "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always Page 7 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or treating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely

SARSWATI VIDHYA PRATISHTHAN M.P ,BHUPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.09.2022 of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revision order dated 18.02.2022 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short Pr. CIT) Indore passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. There is a delay of 199 days in filing the present appeal. The assesse

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

D E R Per Bench: The captioned three appeals have been filed by assessee against three separate appeal-orders all dated 31.10.2014 and passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Indore [“CIT(A)”] in Appeal Nos. IT- 16/13-14/187, IT-173/13-14/188 and IT-241/13-14/189, which in turn arise of respective orders dated 15.03.3013, 28.03.2013 and 30.07.2013 passed