BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of the new asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub- section (1), exceeds (b) the amount that would not have been so charged had the amount actually utilised

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

capital gains against income from other head. It was further submitted that in the said decision, the Gujarat High Court has taken into consideration its earlier decisions rendered in case of Fakir Mohmed HajiHasan vs CIT (247 ITR 290), the decision of DCIT vs Radhe Developers India Ltd (329 ITR 1) and decision of Madras High Court in case

SHRI SUNDERDAS JETWANI,INDORE vs. THE ITO CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

290/- 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and succeeded. Subsequently the Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide I.T.A No.486/Ind/2013 order dated 27.08.2015 set aside the order to the file of CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) allowed the addition of Rs.44,388/- and maintained the addition of Rs.3981888/- as Short Term Capital Gain against

SHRI RAGHVENDRA GOSWAMI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is disposed of in terms of indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10

290/-. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submissions partly allowed the RaghvendraGoswami appeal thereby he directed the assessing officer to assess the long term capital gain of Rs.61,53,470/- for A.Y. 2008-09 where the part of it already stood assessed at Rs.22,50,190/-. 4. Ground no.1

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 ITA Nos. 290 & 460/Ind/2019 [M/s. Yaksha Infrastructure Co. P. Ltd.] Asst.Year.– 2011-12 - 2 - of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. These appeals are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA 290

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 ITA Nos. 290 & 460/Ind/2019 [M/s. Yaksha Infrastructure Co. P. Ltd.] Asst.Year.– 2011-12 - 2 - of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. These appeals are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA 290

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

SMT SADHNA VOHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO 1(3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

2 [ITA 735/Ind/2018] [Smt. Sadhna Vohra, Bhopal] acres of land in M/s. Fortune Soumya Housing, Bhopal on 9.8.2011 for Rs.61 lakhs. Notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued and the assessment u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was framed. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee had purchased some land

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

2,88,28,306/- incurred by assessee towards civil and tiling expenditure treated by AO as capital expenditure. 28. Ld. AR for assessee has submitted on Page No. 44 and 45 of his Written-Submission and also pleaded the same during hearing before us that during the year, the assessee incurred expenses towards civil and tiling on improvement of structures

MEERA BAI CHOUHAN ,INDORE vs. ITO 1 (4), INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2011-12 Shri Ram Singh Chouhan Ito 1(4) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Byjpc4571L Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan Ito 1(4) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Duppb1243A Revenue By Shri H.N. Joshi, Ar Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeals At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income

290/- & Rs.26,61,740/- in the case of assessees namely Shri Ram Singh Chouhan & his wife Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan respectively. 4. Aggrieved assessee(s) preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was contended by Ram Singh Chouhan along with necessary documentary evidences and an affidavit that he sold the ancestral agricultural land for a consideration of Rs.22

SHRI RAM SHINGH CHOUHAN ,INDORE vs. ITO 1(4), INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2011-12 Shri Ram Singh Chouhan Ito 1(4) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Byjpc4571L Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan Ito 1(4) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Duppb1243A Revenue By Shri H.N. Joshi, Ar Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeals At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income

290/- & Rs.26,61,740/- in the case of assessees namely Shri Ram Singh Chouhan & his wife Smt. Meera Bai Chouhan respectively. 4. Aggrieved assessee(s) preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was contended by Ram Singh Chouhan along with necessary documentary evidences and an affidavit that he sold the ancestral agricultural land for a consideration of Rs.22

MARIAMMA KURIAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradmariamma Kurian, Income Tax Officer 1(1) Mig-93 A-Sector, Bhopal Vs. Sonagiri Piplani, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspk4941P Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025 O R D E R

290/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and during the course of proceedings assessee furnished the copy of sale deed as well, however Ld. CIT(A) had observed that in the registered sale deed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is mentioned and not Rs.33,00,000/- as claimed by the assessee and thus concluded that

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

gains, on account of transfer of long term capital asset which was in the name of M/s.Karpagam Studios. The notice indicates that the petitioners could not have claimed deduction under Section 54(F) of the Act. It has also stated Page 8 of 15 Shreepal Humad Page 9 of 15 that the date of completion as per the completion certificate