SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 40A(3), it was held that "In interpreting a taxing statute, the court cannot be oblivious of the proliferation of black money which is under circulation in our country."' 4.3.3; AO's finding that it is a case of dubious tax planning, it has to be necessarily upheld for the simple reasons that the only object of the appellant

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

capital gains in an account which is Page 11 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024- AY: 2015-16 duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount is to be invested in the said account. If the intention

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

SARITA BAGDI ,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD-4(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

Section 10(38) of the Act but since the identity of broker is in dispute the alleged transaction needs to be examined with the period of holding of equity shares in the Demat account of the assessee. As the identity of seller is in doubt and Smt. Sarita Bagdi 9000 equity shares are held in the Demat account for less

M/S MALVIKA AGROTECH PVT. LTD.,DHAR vs. THE ITO-2(2), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Malvika Agrotech Ito, 2(2), Pvt. Ltd, Indore Plot No.185, Sector-1, Pithampur, Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaccm6451G Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri C.P. Rawka,Ca Date Of Hearing 10.09.2018 Date Of 19.9.2018 Pronouncement

Capital gain of Rs.25,32,495/- has been confirmed by both the lower authorities. We find that the assessee did not raise any objection against the adoption of market value by Departmental Valuation Officer before the Assessing Officer to make references to Departmental Valuation Officer (In short DVO) nor he filed any valuation report from any other registered valuer. However

SHRI DR. LIYAKAT ALI KAPADIYA,UJJAIN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2013-14

Capital gain of Rs.25,32,495/- has been confirmed by both the lower authorities. We find that the assessee did not raise any objection against the adoption of market value by Departmental Valuation Officer before the Assessing Officer to make references to Departmental Valuation Officer (In short DVO) nor he filed any valuation report from any other registered valuer. However

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

PARMANAND SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO 5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

section 250, without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Shri Parmanand Sachdev Assessment year 2014-15 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that total income of the assessee at Rs. 80,75,224/- as against the Returned income of Rs. 9,57,130/- thereby confirming addition of Rs. 71,18,094/- without hearing and passing

SMT. MAMTA SINGH,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Smt. Mamta Singh Vs Acit-3(1) Ef-14, Scheme No.54, Indore Vijay Nagar, Indore

capital assets’ as defined in section 2(14) of the Act. The gain of Rs.4,48,97,250/- was treated

VIJAY KOTHARI,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

250 of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961\nclient_rsbco@yahoo.com\n3.3 In support of above Chart, the Ld. AR also filed copies of notices issued\nby CIT(A). Finally, Ld. AR successfully demonstrated that the notices\nappearing at S.No. 4 to 8 were only issued to the e-mail id:\n“sharedrasolanki123@gmail.com” supplied by assessee in Form No. 35; all\nother notices

THE ITO-2(2), INDORE vs. SMT. MOHAN BAI POKHRANA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.468/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10

capital gains scheme. The amount in specified Bonds was actually made on 31-03-2009 i.e. within financial year only. The appellant relying on the decision in the case of Lalit Marda 23 SOT 250 (Kol-Trib) and Muneer Khan 41 SOT 504 (Hyd) submitted that for the claiming exemption 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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or” 17. The AO issued a notice u/s 142(1) dated 03.12.2019 with Annexure which reads as under: ANNEXURE Assessment Proceedings in your case is pending for AY 2012-13. In this regard, you are requested to comply to the following points: Please furnish complete computation of Long

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 54B of the Act on the ground that long-term capital gain so earned at Rs. 47, 28,001 (PB-50) has been invested in purchase of agricultural land in the name of his wife Smt. Shyamu Bai (Rs.33,32,026), son Shri Jitendra (Rs.3,14,250

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

250(6) of the Act 61, and as such for all practical purpose the first two grounds\nof appeal contained in the memorandum of appeal in form 36 are dismissed as\ninfructuous.\n9.\nGround number - 3 relates to the issue of addition of Rs.39,83,693/- on\naccount of capital gains arising on sale of land, which the assessee

SHRI HUKUMCHAND CHOUDHARY ,INDORE vs. ITO (3),INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Capital Gain. Hence the same income cannot be assessed twice. (c) That the AO had wrongly interpreted the judgement of Apex Court held in the case of Balbir Singh Maini which was decided in the context of Joint Development Agreement and the facts of that case were entirely different from the facts of the assessee. Hukumchand Choudhary vs. ITO Asst.Year

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

250 20.05.2014 602.27 1,50,698 3,005/- Pharma KAPPAC 450 09.06.2014 338.76 1,52,442 5,408/- Pharma Page 2 of 24 Smt.Sarla Jain, Khadwa,vs.ITO,Ward 1, Khanndwa A. Y. : 2015-16 5. Now, the assessee has raised following grounds: “1. The assessment is null and void as assessment should have been made u/s 153C as the proceedings

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

sections": [ "253", "143(2)", "142(1)", "80C", "80D", "50C(1)", "250(6)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without discussing merits. Whether the lands sold were agricultural or non-agricultural. Whether the capital gains

GEETA BAI,BERASIA vs. ITO 4(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital gain was exempt under section 54F since the appellant had constructed residential house out of the sale proceeds which is not considered by the CIT Appeals whilst passing the appellant order. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add to amend alter modify substitute withdrawal delete or rescind all or any of the above grounds of appeal