KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, it be held that the income from LTCG at Rs. 1,38,47,826/- is not chargeable to tax in A.Y. 2015-16 in view of the fact that Rs. 50,00,000/- was claimed u/s 54EC

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1),R-5, INDORE

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

section 234A and 234B of the Act. 5. The appellant reserves her right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by her. 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following two common issues have been raised :- 4 Smt. Shweta Agrawal & Anr ITA No.281 & 279/Ind/2019 (i) Genuineness of Long Term Capital Gain

M/S. SANJAY ONKARMAL AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(3) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

section 234A and 234B of the Act. 5. The appellant reserves her right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by her. 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following two common issues have been raised :- 4 Smt. Shweta Agrawal & Anr ITA No.281 & 279/Ind/2019 (i) Genuineness of Long Term Capital Gain

M/S. SHREE VIGNESH WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DY CIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vighnesh Warehouse Dcit, Cpc & Distributors Private Bangaluru बनाम/ Limited Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue)

section 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the present appeal are such that the assessee-company filed return of income which was processed u/s 143(1) of the act, wherein the Ld. AO made

SHANKAR SEWANI,NEW MARKET vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

234B of the Act and therefore the said levy be cancelled.” 3. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act in pursuant to the search and seizure action in case of Signature Group. Ld. AR has submitted that it was not upon

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16 .08.2023

Capital Gain, interest income during the FY 2009-10. It is also noticed that the assessee had not filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, which is on due on 31/07/2010. Assessee has filed his return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the 1.T. Act, on 30/08/2017 vide acknowledgement

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

234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). In response thereto, the assessee made representation before the Assessing officer and filed the requisite details. However

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

234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). In response thereto, the assessee made representation before the Assessing officer and filed the requisite details. However

SMT ANJANA SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

gains. 7. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 41. Ground No.1 raised in these appeals are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 42. Ground No.2 has been raised

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

gains. 7. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 41. Ground No.1 raised in these appeals are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 42. Ground No.2 has been raised

SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

gains. 7. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 41. Ground No.1 raised in these appeals are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 42. Ground No.2 has been raised

SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

gains. 7. That the ld CIT(A) erred in not directing A.O to consider provisions of 234B (3) before calculating interest u/s 234B. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. 41. Ground No.1 raised in these appeals are general in nature which needs no adjudication. 42. Ground No.2 has been raised

M/S SIDDHULA;L,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

capital gain, which is bad in law, void ab initio, illegal, contrary to the facts, records, submissions and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. Page 1 of 14 M/s.Siddhulal Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(2), Bhopal ITA No. 110/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12 (2) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in denial of deduction u/s 54B of the Income

SHRI PURSHOTTAM KHATRI , BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

234B of Rs.41,064/- is not justified. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the case of the assessee was re- opened for assessment and the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income

DHRUV NARAYAN SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO-2(3), BHOPAL

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidhruv Narayan Singh, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ E-2/192 Arera Colony, 2(3), Vs. Bhopal Bhopal (Pan: Aprps4102H) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068530366(1) dated 10.09.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

DCIT-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

gainfully said that the\nAO cannot treat the assessee as defaulter of section 271(1)(c) in AY 2013-14\n& 2014-15 when the situation is just same as in AY 2012-13.\n10.\nAt this stage, we would also like to address one more plea taken by Ld.\nDR for revenue that the assessee has not contested

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

capital work-fin-progress) and no depreciation was claimed against this cost in the return of income filed by the Assessee for the year under consideration. 5.4 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / T * PO pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble DRP, has erred by not taking cognizance

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

gainfully said that the\nAO cannot treat the assessee as defaulter of section 271(1)(c) in AY 2013-14\n& 2014-15 when the situation is just same as in AY 2012-13.\n10. At this stage, we would also like to address one more plea taken by Ld.\nDR for revenue that the assessee has not contested