DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

71,200 Amount deposited in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme u/s 54 .. Rs. 25,00,000 2. Building 15/01/2015: Value u/s 50C 40,30,000 Sales consideration received 40,30,000 Sales Consideration 40,30,000 Less: Transfer Expenses 0 40,30,000 Less: Indexed Cost Building 12,28,800 (F.Y. 1981-82 120000/100*1024) ___________ 28,01,200 Deduction

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

71,289/- in the year under consideration the Page 11 of 21 Bhawani Shankar Page 12 of 21 assessee has shown the consideration of Rs.2 crore and claimed that the same was invested in agricultural land which is more than the capital gain arising from the said consideration. The Assessing officer has recalculated capital gain after discussing the relevant facts

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

71 to the Departmental Valuation Officer. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Hon'ble Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore- 1, Indore had erred in ignoring that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) can be invoked only where sale consideration on sale of immovable property is less than stamp duty valuation. Therefore

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

71 to the Departmental Valuation Officer. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Hon'ble Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore- 1, Indore had erred in ignoring that the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) can be invoked only where sale consideration on sale of immovable property is less than stamp duty valuation. Therefore

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

71,000/- on account of sale consideration from the sale of units of “The Mark Project and Rs.5,26,74,600/- on account of unexplained investment 4 Mohanlal Chugh & others in ‘Pulak City’ project and Rs.3,81,11,476/- on account of undisclosed investment in ‘ Sun City’ project without appreciating the facts and evidences brought in to light

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

71,000/- on account of sale consideration from the sale of units of “The Mark Project and Rs.5,26,74,600/- on account of unexplained investment 4 Mohanlal Chugh & others in ‘Pulak City’ project and Rs.3,81,11,476/- on account of undisclosed investment in ‘ Sun City’ project without appreciating the facts and evidences brought in to light

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

71,000/- on account of sale consideration from the sale of units of “The Mark Project and Rs.5,26,74,600/- on account of unexplained investment 4 Mohanlal Chugh & others in ‘Pulak City’ project and Rs.3,81,11,476/- on account of undisclosed investment in ‘ Sun City’ project without appreciating the facts and evidences brought in to light

SHRI VRINDAVAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital Shri Vrindavan Tayal ITA No.242/Ind/2019 & 245-247/Ind/2019 gain as claimed exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act:- S. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of purchase note dt. 23.03.2012 issued by Vishal Vijay 68 Shah regarding purchase of 200 shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Limited for Rs. 9,048/- 2. Copy of ledger account

SHRI GOPAL TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital Shri Vrindavan Tayal ITA No.242/Ind/2019 & 245-247/Ind/2019 gain as claimed exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act:- S. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of purchase note dt. 23.03.2012 issued by Vishal Vijay 68 Shah regarding purchase of 200 shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Limited for Rs. 9,048/- 2. Copy of ledger account

GOVARDHAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital Shri Vrindavan Tayal ITA No.242/Ind/2019 & 245-247/Ind/2019 gain as claimed exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act:- S. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of purchase note dt. 23.03.2012 issued by Vishal Vijay 68 Shah regarding purchase of 200 shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Limited for Rs. 9,048/- 2. Copy of ledger account

SHRI GAURAV TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital Shri Vrindavan Tayal ITA No.242/Ind/2019 & 245-247/Ind/2019 gain as claimed exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act:- S. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of purchase note dt. 23.03.2012 issued by Vishal Vijay 68 Shah regarding purchase of 200 shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Limited for Rs. 9,048/- 2. Copy of ledger account

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

71,100 Nil 2013-14 05/11/2013 13,57,300 26.10.2016 14,57,300 Nil 2014-15 31/03/2015 14,07,100 26.10.2016 14,07,100 Nil 2015-16 13/03/2016 9,82,450 26/10/2016 09,82,450 Nil 16-17 10.11.2016 5,50,490 NA NA --- 4. During the course of assessment proceedings the A.O issued questionnaire u/s 142(1) and asked

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

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