SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

capital gains tax in the hands of the assessee. Thus, we are of the view that there was no transfer as per section 2(47

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

47,64,396/- from July 2013 to March 2014 at stock exchange through his broker M/s Arihant Capital. Ld. AR has thus submitted that when the purchase of 30000 shares of M/s Santoshima Tradelink Ltd. is not disputed and also duly established by the relevant documents being payment of the purchase consideration made through banking channel duly reflected

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

capital gain tax on such transaction will be levied as per the provisions of section 45 of the Act. (i) There is an agreement to sale for purchase/sale of the property between the buyer and seller (ii) Part consideration has been passed to seller from the buyer (iii) Possession of the property under consideration has been passed

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

SHRI VINOD CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. ITO1 3), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Vinod Choudhary, Ito 1(3) 12, Niranjanpur, Indore Vs. Lasudia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akrpv 4892 Q Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bomb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

Section 2(47) of the Act the Long Term Capital Gain accrued to the assessee in the A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee

SHRI HUKUMCHAND CHOUDHARY ,INDORE vs. ITO (3),INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 2(47) of the Act the Long Term Capital Gain accrued to the assessee in the A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee

KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

47,286/-. The appellant claimed that he had invested Rs. 50 lakhs in bonds and deposited Rs. 91,57,000/- capital gain account. The appellant claimed deduction u/s 54EC of Rs. 50 lakhs and deduction u/s 54F of Rs.91,57,000/-. The appellant has claimed that the amount of Rs. 91,57,000/- was deposited in the capital gain account

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

47,22,100/- in\ntwo years, namely Rs.42,01,80,700/- in Previous Year 2009-10 relevant to\nAY 2010-11 and Rs.6,45,41,400/- in Previous Year 2010-11 relevant to AY\n2011-12. Accordingly, relying upon the provision of section 68(1), the CIT(A)\nalso held that the receipt to the extent of Rs.42

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

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 per Rs. 2 per Rs. 2

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

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 per Rs. 2 per Rs. 2

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

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 per Rs. 2 per Rs. 2

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

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 per Rs. 2 per Rs. 2

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

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 per Rs. 2 per Rs. 2

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

2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is reproduced as under: (47) Transfer in relation to a capital asset includes Any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property

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

capital and revenue. It only mandates that expenditure should be on the objects of trust which is very clear from above submission that the expenditure incurred was towards the objects of the trust. 3.5 In support of his contention he has relied upon the following judgements: i.[2007] 14 SOT 318 (Mumbai)[22-12-2005] Institute of Marine Engineers

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

47,833/- without considering the various judicial proceedings submitted before him, which are directly related to facts of the appellant, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 5. That learned CIT(A) has erred in addition of Rs.89,935/- being 3% on the amount of sale consideration of Rs.29,97,833/- under section 69C without

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

47,833/- without considering the various judicial proceedings submitted before him, which are directly related to facts of the appellant, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 5. That learned CIT(A) has erred in addition of Rs.89,935/- being 3% on the amount of sale consideration of Rs.29,97,833/- under section 69C without

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

47,833/- without considering the various judicial proceedings submitted before him, which are directly related to facts of the appellant, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 5. That learned CIT(A) has erred in addition of Rs.89,935/- being 3% on the amount of sale consideration of Rs.29,97,833/- under section 69C without

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

47,833/- without considering the various judicial proceedings submitted before him, which are directly related to facts of the appellant, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 5. That learned CIT(A) has erred in addition of Rs.89,935/- being 3% on the amount of sale consideration of Rs.29,97,833/- under section 69C without