SHRI SURESH AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO -5(3), INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

251 /Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Suresh Agrawal vs. I.T.O.-5(3),Indore 10 Ankur Hospital, Y N Road Indore अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./PAN:AFJPA 5130 R Shri Girish Agrawal, CA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by Shri Mohd. Javed, Sr. DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by 17-01-2017 सुनवाई

SHRI CDR, UDAI SINGH,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.791/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Cdr Udaisingh Bhopal Pan – Aglps – 7299C :: अपीलाथ" /Appellant Vs Acit 3(1) :: ""यथ" /Respondent Bhopal Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah Shri K.G. Goyal राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By 12.1.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख Date Of Hearing 19.1.2017 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख Date Of Pronouncement

section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act on account of non disclosure of Short Term Capital Gain ofRs. 36,13,794/- in the original return of income filed by the assessee. A notice u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25.03.2013 was issued and the assessee was show caused as to why penalty should not be levied. But neither anyone

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) and son`s wife Smt. Komal (daughter in law) copy of purchase

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

capital gains on the sale of agricultural land at Rao is exempt u/s. 54B. If the said ground is allowed, the addition, if any would be neutralized. f. Ld AO in the remand proceedings has accepted this fact at CIT(A) pg. 18 para 3, which is quoted as under: “Assessee has submitted copies of sale deed of land

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

capital gains on the sale of agricultural land at Rao is exempt u/s. 54B. If the said ground is allowed, the addition, if any would be neutralized. f. Ld AO in the remand proceedings has accepted this fact at CIT(A) pg. 18 para 3, which is quoted as under: “Assessee has submitted copies of sale deed of land

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

251/-. It is\nalso a matter fact that in ITR-2 filed by the assessee, the relevant details of\nthe capital gains from each script is to be filled in Such ITR-2 was available\nbefore the AO when he recorded the reasons before issue of notice u/s 148 of\nthe Act. It appears that Assessing Officer has recorded

SHRI NARAYAN DAS TOLANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

capital gains had already been taxed in assessment year 1962-63 when land was acquired, directed ITO to bring it to tax in current assessment year. Such directions of the ld. CIT(A) were held to be unsustainable. We find that in Onkar Nath, 64 ITR 347 (All.), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that the law gives

M/S RISHI CONSTRUCTION ,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit (Central)-2, Rishi Construction, Bhopal F-11, Mansarovar Complex, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Bhopal Vs.

Capital Gain” head, in present case the assessee would be eligible to get deduction u/s 37(1) which allows deduction of “expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession” because assessee’s income was taxable under “Income from Business or Profession” head. Ld. AR submitted that the verdict of section

ACIT CENTRAL -2 BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RISHI CONSTRUCTION , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit (Central)-2, Rishi Construction, Bhopal F-11, Mansarovar Complex, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Bhopal Vs.

Capital Gain” head, in present case the assessee would be eligible to get deduction u/s 37(1) which allows deduction of “expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession” because assessee’s income was taxable under “Income from Business or Profession” head. Ld. AR submitted that the verdict of section

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 54 F as per which, on the facts of the case, the assessment of Long Term Capital gain has to be made in the assessment year 2012-13. 10.The Appellant prays to alter, to amend, to delete the above grounds as and when occasion arises.” 2. Brief facts, giving rise to present appeal are that the assessment

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 54 F as per which, on the facts of the case, the assessment of Long Term Capital gain has to be made in the assessment year 2012-13. 10.The Appellant prays to alter, to amend, to delete the above grounds as and when occasion arises.” 2. Brief facts, giving rise to present appeal are that the assessment

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

251 ITR 595 (Del.)(FB) …….the inevitable conclusion is that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned, which had not been considered by the Assessing Officer, the jurisdiction to deal with the same in appropriate cases may be dealt with under section 147/148 and section 263, if requisite conditions are fulfilled

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

251 ITR 595 (Del.)(FB) …….the inevitable conclusion is that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned, which had not been considered by the Assessing Officer, the jurisdiction to deal with the same in appropriate cases may be dealt with under section 147/148 and section 263, if requisite conditions are fulfilled

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

251 ITR 595 (Del.)(FB) …….the inevitable conclusion is that whenever the question of taxability of income from a new source of income is concerned, which had not been considered by the Assessing Officer, the jurisdiction to deal with the same in appropriate cases may be dealt with under section 147/148 and section 263, if requisite conditions are fulfilled

ONEEL VERMA,NASHIK vs. ITO-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

capital gain in the hands of the assessee, without allowing any deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition. I.TA No. 394/IND/2025 A.Y. 2009-10 4 Oneel Verma Vs. ITO 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee contended that he was regularly assessed

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

gains, on account of transfer of long term capital asset which was in the name of M/s.Karpagam Studios. The notice indicates that the petitioners could not have claimed deduction under Section 54(F) of the Act. It has also stated Page 8 of 15 Shreepal Humad Page 9 of 15 that the date of completion as per the completion certificate

ASHOK KUMAR KHATHURIA,105 KRANTI KRIPLANI NAGAR vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain and Rs.35,49,760/- u/s 50C of the Act is merely on the basis of assumptions, surmise and presumptions and without any corroborative evidence on record. Therefore, such an order is bad in law hence should be quashed. The order so passed u/s 144 of the Act may kindly be quashed.\n8. The appellant craves leave

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission