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

Section 2(29B). We may also state here that in the assessee's transaction of LTCG, the sale consideration received is Rs.7,82,75,591 pursuant to sale of Listed Scripts of Sunrise between 19.09.2013 - 25.03.2014 and the amount of capital gain as computed by the assessee is Rs.7,51,07,591/- after taking into consideration the cost of purchases

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

section 2(47) of the Act at the time of demolition of part of the house of the assessee and accordingly, no capital gain is taxable in the hands of the assessee in respect of demolition of part of his house. So far as the compulsory acquisition of plot area of 250 Sq Fts is concerned, we find that

SHRI SUNIL SHASRMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11

capital gain and also provision of section 50C of the Act are not applicable. It was also submitted that the person in whose favour in which the property has been gifted has also been assessed by Ld. DCIT-5(1), Shri Sunil sharma Bhopal order dated 20.03.2015 paced at pages 22

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

22,130/- on 30.9.2014 showing it income from Salary, House property, Business and income from share trading. The assessed claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs.20,46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering

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

22,130/- on 30.9.2014 showing it income from Salary, House property, Business and income from share trading. The assessed claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs.20,46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering

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

22,130/- on 30.9.2014 showing it income from Salary, House property, Business and income from share trading. The assessed claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs.20,46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering

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

22,130/- on 30.9.2014 showing it income from Salary, House property, Business and income from share trading. The assessed claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs.20,46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering

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

22,130/- on 30.9.2014 showing it income from Salary, House property, Business and income from share trading. The assessed claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs.20,46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain derived from sale of listed company’s share namely M/s Turbo Tech 3 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Engineering

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

22. First of all, let us understand the exact grievance of revenue carefully. In the return of income, the assessee declared having earned long-term capital gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Income-tax Act, from shares of Satyam Computer Services. During assessment-proceeding, the AO held the impugned capital gain as non-genuine and accordingly made addition

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

capital gains.\n4. On January 22, 1985, the Department conducted a search and, having\nfound a sum of Rs.4,15,000 in the bank lockers, seized the same by passing\nan order on May 14, 1985, under Section

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

capital gain. In the case in hand the AO has not accepted the claim of assessee but he himself has determined the fair market value by adopting reverse indexation method which is a one of the acceptable method of determination of fair market value. Hence the Assessing Officer has taken a possible view on the point of determination of fair

MANORAMA DEVI SHARMA,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

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

section 10(38) of the Act and the relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench contained at Para 8 read as under:- "8. The assessee has earned speculation profit in the immediately preceding year through M/s Eden Financial Services also and the said profit has been used to purchase the shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. The assessee has offered

PRATAP BAJAJ,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

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

section 10(38) of the Act and the relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench contained at Para 8 read as under:- "8. The assessee has earned speculation profit in the immediately preceding year through M/s Eden Financial Services also and the said profit has been used to purchase the shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. The assessee has offered

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion, was not sustainable in view of the fact that credit in assessee’s bank account represents sale proceeds of shares sold in recognized stock exchange through registered stock broker. The sale transactions have taken place through recognized stock exchange and the money was received in settlement through banking channels

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion, was not sustainable in view of the fact that credit in assessee’s bank account represents sale proceeds of shares sold in recognized stock exchange through registered stock broker. The sale transactions have taken place through recognized stock exchange and the money was received in settlement through banking channels

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion, was not sustainable in view of the fact that credit in assessee’s bank account represents sale proceeds of shares sold in recognized stock exchange through registered stock broker. The sale transactions have taken place through recognized stock exchange and the money was received in settlement through banking channels

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion, was not sustainable in view of the fact that credit in assessee’s bank account represents sale proceeds of shares sold in recognized stock exchange through registered stock broker. The sale transactions have taken place through recognized stock exchange and the money was received in settlement through banking channels

SMT. SARLA JAIN,KHANDWA vs. ITO WARD 1 KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sarla Jain, Ito, C/O Nakoda Marketing, Ward-1, बनाम/ Bhavani Mata Road, Khandwa Khandwa Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpj1316J Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

section 153C. In that view of matter, we are of the considered view that the AO is very much justified in framing assessment u/s 143(3). Therefore, there is no worth in the ground of assessee. The same is hereby dismissed. Page 15 of 24 Smt.Sarla Jain, Khadwa,vs.ITO,Ward 1, Khanndwa A. Y. : 2015-16 Ground

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)

gain. According to the Assessing Officer, the on-money of Rs.2,08,00,000/- received by the assessee is not a normal receipt on sale of capital asset and therefore, no claim under any section of the Income Tax Act is allowable against this receipt. According to the Assessing Officer, since the said amount was admitted only after search action