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

6 are directed against AO's action in holding the claim of STCG as in-genuine and treating such income as income from undisclosed sources. In view of factual position, as noted above, and oblivious inferences emerging the AO's action is found to be fully justified and has to be necessarily approved keeping in view the further discussion made

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

6 Krishna Mohan Chourasia 25.11.2010 and out of the diverted land, land admeasuring 1.147 hectares was sold during the year. Similarly, agricultural land situated at Survey no. 82/6 admeasuring 0.772 hectares was diverted on 25.11.2010 and out of the diverted land, land admeasuring 0.368 hectares was sold during the year. Thus, the assessee sold 1.515 hectares (1.147 hectares + 0.368 hectares

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

6. Ld. Departmental Representative made detailed submissions referring to the finding of both the lower authorities and also relying on the decisions relied by Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. A.O. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions referred and relied by both the parties. Through Ground No.1

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

6 Malvika Agrotech Pvt. Ltd the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-2003 and it is in the nature of special provision which is introduced in determining the full value of the consideration in case of transfer of land or building or both. The value determined or assessed by any authority of the State Government for purpose

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

6 Dr. Liyakat Ali Kapadia ITA 668 of 2017 the provision of section 5OC to the transfer of depreciable capital assets covered by section 50 and in computing the capital gain arising from the said transfer by adopting the stamp duty valuation. [Para 20]" In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Co. Circle IV(3), Chennai

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

6 Bharat Shah house in India (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole

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 54EC the same fund is not required

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

6) The CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the order of the AO regarding treatment of the income Rs 4,92,99,250/-- arising on sale of the above 3 Mamta Singh agricultural lands as the income from business by treating the gain resulting from sale of said land earlier offered but withdrawn by appellant as Short Term Capital

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

6 of 21 Bhawani Shankar Page 7 of 21 cause notice dated 06.01.2022. The only issue taken up by the Pr. CIT while issuing show cause notice u/s 263 is regarding fair market value of the land sold by the assessee as on 01.04.1981 to be determined on the basis of the valuation report of the DVO received after assessment

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 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

6. Being, aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), wherein it was claimed that the amount of cash of Rs. 48,50,000 was received on account of sale of agricultural land and claimed the same as deduction under section 54B of the Act on the ground that long-term capital gain so earned

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250/-. As per the information available the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee sold immovable property at Rs. 4,31,75,600/- on 27.04.2011. As per registered deed of the sold property, the same was sold to the M/s. Brilliant Home Pvt. Ltd. Indore. The location of the land was within the municipal limits of Indore city, during

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

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case no cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and expenses relating to transfer of land has been considered which is bad in law and erroneous. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the entire amount of capital gain was exempt under section 54F since the appellant had constructed

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

6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case no cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and expenses relating to transfer of land has been considered which is bad in law and erroneous. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the entire amount of capital gain was exempt under section 54F since the appellant had constructed