SHRI KAILASH BHAGWAN CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(3), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

section 54B(2) of the Act, the un-utilized portion of the sale consideration is required to be deposited in capital gain before issue of furnishing the return of income. As per the assessee, due date of furnishing of income would also [ ITA No.68/Ind/2017] [Shri Kailash Bhagwan Choudhary, Indore] include the date of furnishing of income

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

capital gain. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court reported as Fathima Bai vs. Income Tax Officer (2009) 32 DTR 243, where in somewhat similar circumstances, it has been held that time limit for deposit under Scheme or utilization can be made before the due date for filing

SHRI KULWANT SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, INDORE

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

274 r/w section 271, in the standard format, the Assessing Officer should delete the inappropriate words or paragraphs, otherwise, it may indicate that the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee Shri Kulwant Singh Bhatia v. Addl. CIT-Range 3(1) Indore/I.T.A. No. 414 to 419/Ind/2012/A.Y

SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rakesh Agrawal, Ito-4(4) बनाम/ 36, Teli Bakhal, Malharganj, Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Adzpa0506H Appellant By Shri Prakash Jain & Smt. Shreya Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 11.03.2019 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 274/271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 27.03.2018 By Ito- 4(4), Indore. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act dated 23.03.2018 fixing the date of hearing on 27.03.2018 itself and on contacting Ld. AO on 28.03.2018 it was told that penalty order is already passed. ii. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO has erred in imposing the penalty

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16 .08.2023

Capital Gain, interest income during the FY 2009-10. It is also noticed that the assessee had not filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, which is on due on 31/07/2010. Assessee has filed his return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the 1.T. Act, on 30/08/2017 vide acknowledgement

MAHESH DALODRA,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result-the Impugned order is set Aside as and by way

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimahesh Dalodra Nfac, Delhi बनाम/ Row House No.3, Patel Nagar Vs. Aerodrome Road. Madhya Pradesh (Pan: Aehpd4345Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjay Sodani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 54 on the said plot of land which is sine-qua-non for the considering his eligibility w.r.t. claim of exemption u/s 54 and his submission is also silent on the primary issue i.e. exemption u/s 54 is available only in respect of transfer of original asset i.e. residential house and not on plot of land, hence, no interference

ASHRAF KHAN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Capital Gain of Rs.8,07,996/- in the original return of income. By issuing notice u/s 274 of the Act and after considering the submissions made by the assessee, levied penalty of Rs.1,66,500/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. The instant appeal relates to the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and against

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

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

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

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

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

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

RAJEEV KAPOOR,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajeev Kapoor, Acit-2(1), बनाम/ C/O Arera Auto Centre, Bhopal Vs. E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Adupk1034D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025

274) and the cases cited by the appellant during the appellate proceedings, that no penalty can be imposed unless the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being Page 3 of 9 Rajeev Kapoor ITA No. 828/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2012-13 heard. The penalty order has been confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in complete violation of the principles

THE ACIT, - 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Pan : Aaacy1868M

capital nature." 13. In the light of the above judgment it has to be examined that whether the alleged gain is on account of revenue proceeds received from the Special Economic Zone. We find that there is no dispute to this fact that the alleged amount is the net of gain/loss of the foreign currency received during the year from

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

274 of the Income-tax Act provides the procedure for imposing the penalty while section 275 sets out the time-limit within which the penalty proceedings must be completed. Section 275 requires to complete the penalty proceedings within two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which the action for imposition

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

274 of the Income-tax Act provides the procedure for imposing the penalty while section 275 sets out the time-limit within which the penalty proceedings must be completed. Section 275 requires to complete the penalty proceedings within two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which the action for imposition

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

274 of the Income-tax Act provides the procedure for imposing the penalty while section 275 sets out the time-limit within which the penalty proceedings must be completed. Section 275 requires to complete the penalty proceedings within two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which the action for imposition

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) on the footing that the assessee has ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’. In response, the assessee furnished reply on 18.06.2019. After considering assessee’s reply, the AO imposed penalty qua two disallowances Page 2 of 22 ITA No. 471/Ind/2023 - AY 2016-17 SRK Dev Build Pvt. Ltd out of three i.e. qua the disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL vs. MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI ANUSUCHIT JATI VITT EVAM VIKAS NIGAM, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 80P of the IT Act, 1961 and\nallowing the appeal of the assessee, thereby deleting the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Rs.1,75,00,000/-, when inaccurate particulars of income are\nclearly apparent from the return of income filed and the submissions of the\nassessee during the penalty proceedings?\"\n2. The background facts leading to present appeal

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

capital but it extends to the entire 43 Asian Business Connection Private Limited accumulated profits. 'Accumulated profits' means profits in a commercial sense. The expression includes tax-free profits like agricultural Income, general reserve, development rebate reserve, credit balance and initial depreciation but not normal depreciation nor provision for taxation and dividends. 25. On a bare perusal of section