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 10(37) of the Act subject to conditions specified therein. However, since land compulsorily acquired by the Government in the present case was a rural agricultural land, there arises no question of taxability of capital gain on compulsory acquisition of such land. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.9

M/S SHISHUKUNJ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,THE SHISHUKUNJ INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, GRAM JHALARIA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX. AAYKAR BHAWAN,

250 (Mad).”\n15.\nLd. AR continued his submission to contend that the Ld. PCIT(Central)\nhas gained a wrong understanding that the violations of section 13(3) [on\naccount of payments to or for the benefits of interested persons], even if\nthere be, attracted cancellation of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi). He submitted\nthat the violation of section

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

250 (Mad.) 12. Therefore, in view of our aforesaid discussion, on the preliminary point itself, we find that the impugned order of the Commissioner cancelling the registration u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act is bereft of a valid jurisdiction. (iii)The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Islamic Academic of Education reported in 229 Taxman

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

250 (Mad.) 12. Therefore, in view of our aforesaid discussion, on the preliminary point itself, we find that the impugned order of the Commissioner cancelling the registration u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act is bereft of a valid jurisdiction. (iii)The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Islamic Academic of Education reported in 229 Taxman

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

4) INDORE (in case the document is digitally wred please refer Digital Signature at the bottoms of the page) 18. The AO asked the assessee to furnish complete computation of long term capital gain along with documentary evidence to substantiate the claim. In response to notice u/s 142(1) assessee filed reply dated 11.12.2019 giving the details of the amount

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 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

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

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

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

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain of Rs.21,68,388/- to be taxed separately\n2.12 That the aforesaid assessment order of Ld. A.O bears\nNo.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1031627237(1) and is dated\n20.03.2021 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned\nassessment order\".\n2.13 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid\n\"impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal before Ld.\nCIT(A) who by “impugned order

NAYANA JAYESH PATEL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

4. computed\ntaxable long-term 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

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Capital Gain Deposit Scheme, 1988. Therefore,\nthere can hardly be any hesitation about meritorious nature of assessee's\ncase. With these submissions, Ld. AR relied upon Collector, Land\nAcquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387\n(SC); Shree Rajendra Suri Sah Sakh Sanstha Myd, ITA No. 360 &\n361/Ind/2023 (ITAT, Indore); Shree Swamy Samarth Prassana

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

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