ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

capital gains. The Honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi (Supra) has categorically stated that the amounts received by the retiring partner are neither chargeable to tax under section 28(iv) nor under section 28(v). Therefore, the findings 16 Shri Rajul Bhargava, Indore & otr. rendered by the ITSC in the assessees’ own case on this

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

capital gains. The Honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi (Supra) has categorically stated that the amounts received by the retiring partner are neither chargeable to tax under section 28(iv) nor under section 28(v). Therefore, the findings 16 Shri Rajul Bhargava, Indore & otr. rendered by the ITSC in the assessees’ own case on this

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

capital gain if, at all, is not eligible to tax. ITA No. 117/Ind/2021 (Gunveer Singh Chhabra vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 8 11. On the other hand, apart from relying upon the certificate issued by the SDM , the Revenue has come up with the further case that the aerial distance of the land in question from the Municipal limit

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

capital gains’ in detail and accordingly, the assessment order was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue by the Ld. PCIT. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the jurisdiction of Ld. PCIT assumed u/s 263 of the Act. 6. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

THE ITO, -3(2), INDORE vs. SHRI VIKRAMADITYA RANA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(2) Shri Vikramaditya Rana, Indore 5-E, Lakshya Regency, 15/2, Old बनाम/ Palasia, Indore Vs. (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Abvpj8461L Appellant By Shri V.J. Voricha, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Tribhuvan Sachdeva Adv. Date Of Hearing: 10.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R

Gain & cost of improvement & expenses on stamp duty were not sustained and remained unexplained.” 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out on the records are that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act completed in the case of assessee on 31.12.2010. Ld. AO assessed income of Rs.5,38,65,523/- after making various additions under the long term capital

HARISH KUMAR CHANDNANI,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

capital gain'. The above transaction is 'adventure in the nature of trade' and profit\narising out of above transaction is chargeable as 'business profit' of the assessee-society.\n10.4 As discussed in preceding paras, since the impugned sale transaction is 'adventure\nin the nature of trade', the contention of the assessee-society that the impugned lands are\n'rural agricultural

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI VINOD GARG, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

221 s/o Shantilal 2010- 28.02.2011 Smt Rajkumari Vinodkumar Jain 36 1800 515500 286 11 261 17.01.2011 Smt Vishni W/o Ghanshyam 82 900 234500 Project: - Keshav Riddhi Address:- Survey No. 504, Bhuniyakhed Mandsaur Coloniser:- Vinod Kumar Garg & other members Year wise Detail of sale of plot at Keshav Siddhi Rate Date of Plot Area (In Per Registration Name of Buyer

M/S. MANISH FILMS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

capital gain of Rs.80,58,000/- on the ground that provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 [ITA 152/Ind/2015] [M/s. Manish Films Pvt. Ltd., Indore] were not applicable to transfer of land and building being a lease hold property”. The said question was dismissed on the ground that the revenue had not preferred any appeal against the order

DEVENDRA CHOKSEY,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Devendra Chouksey, Pr. Cit-1, Aayakar Bhawan, 20/8, Shalimar Enclave, 48, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Near Under Bridge, E-3, Vs. Road, Bhopal 462011 Arera Colony, Bhopal 462016 Pan Abapc5311R (Appellant) (Respondent)

221(5) TIM 485 ITAT Chandigarh and ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Balvinder Kumar vs PCIT reported as (2021) 125 taxmann.com 83 held that in a case of limited scrutiny the Assessing Officer could not go beyond the reason for which the matter was selected for limited scrutiny. Thus it would not be opened to PCIT to pass

M/S. YATHARTH INFRASTRUCTURES (P) LTD.,UJJAIN vs. PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill

SHRI PRASHANT AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -I , BHOPAL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

section 32(1) by making a sufficient note in assessment-order. Consequently, we uphold AO’s action. The assessee fails in this ground. Ground No. 23: 32. This ground relates to the cost of Rs. 73,10,920/- incurred by assessee towards licensed software treated by AO as capital expenditure. 33. The assessee has incurred cost towards purchase of licensed