PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

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

2. As accepted by both the parties the issues raised and facts involved in all these four appeals are common, therefore it was decided to hear all these appeals together and are being disposed off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Assessee(s) has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ayush Jain Assessment

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

2) Dipesh Ranmeshchandra Vardhan(Page nos. 62 to 71) and, (3) Anraj Hiralal Shah(page nos.72 to 74) has dealt with the identical issue and decided in favour of the assessees. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as many as three High Courts i.e. Delhi High Court, Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court Page

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

section 2(22)(e) as explained in CIT v. Mukundray Shah[2007] 160 Taxmann 276 (SC) : 3. CIT v Gayatri Chakraborty [2018] 94 taxmann.com 244 (Calcutta) (HC) 4. Chadrasekhar Maruti v ACIT [2016] 71 taxmann.com 239 (Mumbai ITAT) 5. M. Amareswara Rao v DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 15 (Vishakhapatnam ITAT) 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Farida Holding (P) Ltdn

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. DR. SHRI RAJEEV CHAUDHARY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Pan : Abkpc5729K Assistant Commissioner Of V/S Dr.Rajeev Choudhary Income Tax, 1, Shiv Vilas Palace Circle-2(1), Indore Indore

2,66,205 Service Tax on brokerage 1,71,442 Transaction charges 46,159 Stamp charges 815 Turnover charges 970 Total 5,27,267 ii. The said expenses Rs. 5,27,267/- claimed against short-term capital gain on sale of shares. During the year under appeal short term sale proceeds of shares Rs. 12,41,10,593/- and long

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

71,256 and purchased a house at Delhi. The exemption was claimed from the charge of tax on capital gain under Section 54F of the Act. It was, rejected by the ITO as also by the Tribunal. This Court observed that substantial investment was made in construction of the house. In view of the requirement of Section

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

2 FDR’s as prepared for Rs 46,13,000/- was on account of capital gain scheme or not was not examined by the assessing officer 3 Deduction as claimed for construction of House was not correct for Rs 43,31,991/-. 13. While completing the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act Ld. Pr. CIT was satisfied with the assessee

SHRI SURESH AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO -5(3), INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

section 2(14) of the Act and holding that no specific ground has been filed on addition made towards long term capital gain. 04. not giving any finding on ground no. 06 before him relating to addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of household expenditure. 2. Ground no. 1 to 3 relates to denying

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 69 of the Income-Tax Act,1961-Unexplained investments. AY.1998-99. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officers found that assessee had purchased certain shares of a company Page 16 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2015-16 at rate between Rs. 2.50 and Rs. 3.40 per share in month of April, 1997 and part of those shares were sold through

SHRI KAILASH BHAGWAN CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

71,935/-. Thus total taxable long term capital gain as per the A.O. is Rs.71,39,679/-. Against this, the assessee has preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering submissions partly allowed the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) in respect of computation of capital gain affirmed the view of the A.O. in respect of rejection of claim

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

71 permits assessee to set off loss other than of 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

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

71,856 proprietor of M/s Samarth Impex, Indore) 3 Income from Long Term Capital 27,50,406 Gain (Exempt U/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act 4 Interest on saving Bank Interest 8,715 5 Dividend Income 3,830 3.1] Details of all bank accounts as maintained by the assessee in the year under consideration is as under:- S.No

SMT SHILPA DESAI ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Desai, Indore Pan – Abzpd 4926 A … Appellant Vs. Pcit-I, Indore … Respondent

2 Large deduction claimed u/s 54B,54C,54D, 54G,54GA 12 Shilpa Desai ITA 112 of 2021 Thus, learned Counsel for the assessee contended that during the course of Assessment proceedings the A.O has duly raised the queries in respect of Long Term Capital Gain as earned by the assessee and the claim for deduction as taken

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments Assessment year 1998-99 During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer found that assessee had purchased certain shares of a company at rate between Rs. 2.50 and Rs. 3.40 per share in month of April; 1997 and part of those shares were sold through a broker at Rs. 55 per share

SHRI ABHISHEK GUPTA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Capital Gain made by the respective assessee(s) deserves to be allowed as they have entered into the transactions of purchase and sales duly supported by the documents which have not found to be incorrect. The conditions provided u/s 10(38) of the Act have been fulfilled by the assessee(s) namely Shivnarayan Sharma, Sapan Shaw, Prayank Jain, Govind Harinarayan

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

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

SHRI SALEEM PARVEZ,BHOPAL vs. PCIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Saleem Parvez Pcit-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ P.A.No. Acyps8006L Vs. Appellant (Assessee) Respondent (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22 / 02 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09 /03/ 2022 आदेश / O R D E R

71,32,716/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain. Subsequently the return was revised on 17.08.2016 declaring income of Rs. 3,73,33,850/- from Long Term Capital Gain. After perusal of revised calculation of Long Term Capital Gain, copies of sale and purchase deeds and bank account, revised return of income filed by the assessee is accepted

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

2) The amount of the capital gain which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing