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 gains is not used in the strict sense of legal transfer and holding of legal title within one year is not a condition precedent for attracting Section 54/54F, as was held in CIT v. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (1995) 211

SHRI RAMESH MANGAL,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Pan : Abwpm2673E

section 48 of the Act as the capital gain derived by the appellant from transfer of the capital asset was in the nature of a long-term capital gain." 6."That, without prejudice to the above, both the authorities below grossly erred in not issuing an appropriate direction to the effect that having preponed the incidence of tax from subsequent

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 2(14)(3) of the Act and accordingly, the amount of capital gain claimed by the assessee has been rightly allowed by the AO in the original proceedings as the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the assessee. In support of his submission, he further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

capital gains on the sale of agricultural land at Rao is exempt u/s. 54B. If the said ground is allowed, the addition, if any would be neutralized. f. Ld AO in the remand proceedings has accepted this fact at CIT(A) pg. 18 para 3, which is quoted as under: “Assessee has submitted copies of sale deed of land

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

capital gains on the sale of agricultural land at Rao is exempt u/s. 54B. If the said ground is allowed, the addition, if any would be neutralized. f. Ld AO in the remand proceedings has accepted this fact at CIT(A) pg. 18 para 3, which is quoted as under: “Assessee has submitted copies of sale deed of land

INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2009-10

gain or loss is regarded as of a capital nature. 2.3 Foreign exchange loss cannot be disallowed merely because the loss is not paid or the same is notional. Provision for loss has been made as prescribed by the Accounting Standard (AS) pronounced by ICAI. These AS are mandatory in nature for all the companies according to section 211

M/S ASHOKA HI-TECH BUILDERS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

capital assets and not stock in trade. In the instant case the assessee has reflected the land as stock in trade and therefore the provision of sub section are not applicable to it. vii) As regards the assessee argument that it has been recognising the revenue on the same line from years to years, it will be sufficient to state

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

capital gains made on acquisition of land appurtenant to the building or on the investment on land on which building is being constructed. When the land is purchased and building is constructed thereon, it is not necessary that such construction should be on the entire plot of land, meaning thereby a part of the land which is appurtenant

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

capital gains made on acquisition of land appurtenant to the building or on the investment on land on which building is being constructed. When the land is purchased and building is constructed thereon, it is not necessary that such construction should be on the entire plot of land, meaning thereby a part of the land which is appurtenant

MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

capital gains made on acquisition of land appurtenant to the building or on the investment on land on which building is being constructed. When the land is purchased and building is constructed thereon, it is not necessary that such construction should be on the entire plot of land, meaning thereby a part of the land which is appurtenant

ACIT-2.INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR BANSAL, KHANDWA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital account of the assessee in the SS 211 of 2021 4 Rajendra Kumar Bansal books of M/s Motilal Gopikishan for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2018 in support of cash withdrawn from the firm, M/s Motilal Gopikishan so as to substantiate that the assessee was having sufficient balance of cash available with him to justify the source of loans

SMT NAYANA JAYESH PATEL ,INDORE vs. ACIT ( OSD ) , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninayana Jayesh Patel Pr. Cit 29/5, South Tukoganj Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afypp 2075H Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02 .08.2023

211 TTJ 823 / 203 DTR 103 (Kol.)(Trib.) and has also relied upon the decision of the Raipur Bench of this Tribunal in case of Mahabir Prasad Ajirma v. PCIT 213 TTJ 610/206 DTR 361 (Raipur)(Trib.) 5. Ld. AR has submitted that the AO has finalized the assessment order after accepting assessee’s computation of capital gain

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars.” Page 10 of 22 ITA No. 471/Ind/2023 - AY 2016-17 SRK Dev Build

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito, Kalra, 1(1), बनाम/ Agar Road, Ujjain Ganesh Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

capital gain of Rs. 36,37,171/- chargeable in the hands of assessee. After selling impugned property, the assessee purchased two residential properties, namely Ruby Vila No. 4 for Rs. 31,64,050/- (1/3rd of 94,92,150/-) and Ruby Villa No. 6 for Rs. 35,78,150/- and on the strength of investment, the assessee claimed exemption

MR.VINEET SHRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( IT&TP), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimr. Vineet Shrivastava Ito (It & Tp) E-7/795, Arera Colony Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bcxps 2544 H Assessee By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023

211 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. 2. We have heard Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR on the condonation of delay. The Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the AO without giving effect to the directions of the DRP dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital receipt.” 5.Director of Income-tax (Exemption) vs. Keshav Social and Charitable Foundation (2005) 278 ITR 152 (Delhi High Court) “Exemption – Charitable purpose – Trust – Donations received in previous year – Assessee only required to show donations were voluntary – More than 75% of income used for charitable purposes in accordance with objects – Assessee duly registered under section 12A – list of bonors submitted

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital receipt.” 5.Director of Income-tax (Exemption) vs. Keshav Social and Charitable Foundation (2005) 278 ITR 152 (Delhi High Court) “Exemption – Charitable purpose – Trust – Donations received in previous year – Assessee only required to show donations were voluntary – More than 75% of income used for charitable purposes in accordance with objects – Assessee duly registered under section 12A – list of bonors submitted

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question. 17. This distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising jurisdiction under Section