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

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

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, 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

GEETA BAI,BHOPAL 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

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

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

capital gain in terms with sub-section (3) of section 50C. Therefore, sub- section (1) to section 50C cannot be considered in isolation. By making an adjustment of the nature contemplated under sub-section (1) to section 50C, that too, by CPC, the Department takes away a valuable statutory right given to the assessee to object to the value determined

NAYANA JAYESH PATEL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain of rs. 18594875 as against computed by\nthe assessee and accepted in original assessment at rs. nil.\n5. That Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the provisions of first\nproviso to section 50c of the act properly and also without considering\nthe supporting documents submitted by assessee in support of\napplication of first proviso to section

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

250 of the Act, which is herein after Page 1 of 13 Sitaram Muchhala ITA No. 661/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19 referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant assessment year is 2018-19 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That as and by way of an “ Assessment order” made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B

SHRI KISHAN YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which provides\nthat “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall\nbe in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon\nand the reason for the decision.". Further, the case of assessee before AO\nwas such that the assessee sold an agricultural land

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 (1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJEEV PATNI, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Ground no. 2 :- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (appeals) learned erred in not quashing the reassessment proceedings as illegal and void as the same were without issuing mandatory notice U/S 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Ground no. 3 :- On facts and circumstances

SHRI SANJEEV PATNI,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Ground no. 2 :- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (appeals) learned erred in not quashing the reassessment proceedings as illegal and void as the same were without issuing mandatory notice U/S 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act. 1961. Ground no. 3 :- On facts and circumstances

VISHNU MORI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 4(3), INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshivishnu Mori, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Gram Bangarda, 4(3), Vs. Gandhi Nagar, Indore Indore (Pan: Ayjpv9674N) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By S/Shri Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 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- 25/1070754058(1) dated 29.11.2024 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

SUNITA GUPTA,INDORE vs. ACIT 2(1), RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisunita Gupta Acit 2(1) 404 Suraj Villa Raipur 9/2 New Palasia Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adcpg 7885L Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

section 144 of the Act and the AO has made an addition of Rs.52,77,199/- u/s 68 of the Act which was declared by the assessee as long term capital gain on sale of shares of Blueprint Securities Ltd. and Konark Commerce & Industries Ltd. Ld.AR has submitted that the AO has treated the transactions of purchase and sale

NAJMA SIDDIQUI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2012-13 Najma Siddiqui Ito 3(1) 131, Housing Board Bhopal बनाम/ Colony Kohe Fiza Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Anepb8802G Assesseeby Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2025

250 of the Act 61 , dated 29/06/2024, which has arisen from the Assessment order of the ITO 3(1), Bhopal, dated 30/12/2019, passed u/s 147 of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as follows: ““1.Theld AO was not justified in passing the order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation