KUMARI AYUSHI NYATI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

276 of Case Laws Paper Book) 18. Ashok Agrawal & Others V/s ACIT, Jaipur, I.T.A.T. ITA No.124/JP/20 & others dated 18.11.2020. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Jaipur in the case of Ashok Agrawal and others ITA No.124/JP/2020 & others order dated 18.11.2020 wherein

SMT VIJAYA NYATI, DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

276 of Case Laws Paper Book) 18. Ashok Agrawal & Others V/s ACIT, Jaipur, I.T.A.T. ITA No.124/JP/20 & others dated 18.11.2020. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Jaipur in the case of Ashok Agrawal and others ITA No.124/JP/2020 & others order dated 18.11.2020 wherein

SMT. MAMTA NYATI DHAMNOD DISTT. DHAR,DHAMNOD vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

276 of Case Laws Paper Book) 18. Ashok Agrawal & Others V/s ACIT, Jaipur, I.T.A.T. ITA No.124/JP/20 & others dated 18.11.2020. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Jaipur in the case of Ashok Agrawal and others ITA No.124/JP/2020 & others order dated 18.11.2020 wherein

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

276 (Chennai) / [2012] 14 ITR (T) 15 (Chennai)/ 50 SOT 537 (Chennai) where the assessee has earned long term capital gains from sale of property on 8.6.2008 on which net capital gains of Rs. 32,77,450/- . The assessee has purchased land for Rs. 38.88 Lakh till September 2006. However, due to petition filed for injunction by the owners

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital gains on sale of shares u/s 10(38) etc. it is clear from the orders of the lower authorities that the assessee has not placed nay material to prove that her transactions are genuine. She has also not placed any material to prove that the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) is genuine and valid. Since, trio right

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital gain and claimed the amount as exempt u/s 10(38) of the LT. Act by way of taking accommodation entry. The purchase of shares is an off market transaction. The appellant is a not regular investor in the shares and invested in shares for the first time and earned return of more than 200 times within a short span

SHRI ABHISHEK GUPTA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital gain declared by the assessee is not genuine and the same has been arranged by the assessee so as to claim benefit of section 10(38). Therefore, the Ld. AO assessee issued show-cause notice dated 02.12.2016 to the assessee, the contents of which are extracted below: "आपके "वारा "कये गये "यवहार" के स"ब"ध म" "वभाग "वारा

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

capital gain and claimed the amount as exempt u/s 10(38) of the LT. Act by way of taking accommodation entry. The purchase of shares is an off market transaction. The appellant had made investment through the derecognized broker and had earned excessive return within a short span of period which is Page 8 of 17 Shri Parmanand Sachdev Assessment

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

capital assets, the gain resulting on sale of such lands is not includible in the computation does not amount to a fresh claim . 8) Without prejudice , the Learned CIT(A) is also erred in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs 8,97,000/- made by AO while computing income from sale of the above lands in respect of brokerage

M/S. HERO'S EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

capital gain on such transaction. 25. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 26. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee has purchased the land for Rs. 3,87,000/- and same was sold for Rs. 62.50 lakhs during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the assessee has earned a sum of Rs. 58.63 lakhs

MR. CHHITAR SINGH BHIKAJI,KHANDWA vs. ITO-1 KHANDWA, KHANDWA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Chhitar Singh Bhikaji Ito-1 Village-Sihada Khandwa Vs. Tah.- Khandwa Dist- Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Frhps 0744 A Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2023

capital gains was arise as has rightly been treated by A.O. But so far as consideration of Rs. 28,00,000/- the learned A.O. is not agreeing on facts that the sum of Rs. 28,00,000/- received as sale consideration of above mentioned rural agricultural land and make an addition under section 69 of the act. 4. That

INCOME TAX OFFICER , RAISEN, RAISEN vs. LATE SUDHA AGRAWAL TH. L/H MANMOHAN AGRAWAL, RAISEN

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniincome-Tax Officer, Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal, बनाम/ Raisen (L/H: Manmohan Agrawal) Vs. 19/1, Shreeji Enterprise, Near Sbi, Sagar Road, Yashwant Nagar, M.P. (Pan: Abfpa4355G) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

capital gain in the said piece of land and did not invest in a residential property as per the requirement of the section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee’s Cross-Objection: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ground no.(i) of the Department’s appeal memo did not arise from the order

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

capital account and without showing the same as additional income. Therefore, the additional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account. Thus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of undisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) during search. Also, the appellant has accepted the addition made by the AO amounting

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

276 (SC):\n\"74. In R.R.M Educational Society's appeal before this court, the charitable\nstatus of the appellant within Section 10(23C) was denied inter alia on the\nground that the institution was not merely imparting education but also was\nrunning hostels. It is clarified that providing hostel facilities to pupils\nwould be an activity incidental to imparting education

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

section 2(22)(e) as explained in CIT v. Mukundray Shah[2007] 160 Taxmann 276 (SC) : 3. CIT v Gayatri Chakraborty [2018] 94 taxmann.com 244 (Calcutta) (HC) 4. Chadrasekhar Maruti v ACIT [2016] 71 taxmann.com 239 (Mumbai ITAT) 5. M. Amareswara Rao v DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 15 (Vishakhapatnam ITAT) 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Farida Holding (P) Ltdn

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

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

section 68 of the income tax act. 6.4. The appellant has now submitted that it has received business income and transfers from other banks of self. However, the appellant was not able to prove the same on the basis of cashbook and details of cash sales, etc. The remand report also states that the claim made by the appellant cannot

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

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

section 68 of the income tax act. 6.4. The appellant has now submitted that it has received business income and transfers from other banks of self. However, the appellant was not able to prove the same on the basis of cashbook and details of cash sales, etc. The remand report also states that the claim made by the appellant cannot

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

276/-].\n(3) When we analyze the above with TAR [page 73 to 92 of paper book Vol.I] and other papers on record we observe as under:-\n(i) On Page 73 of paper book Vol.I Auditor Report u/s 44AB of the Act para 3(a)(1) states that \"The cash in hand and stock in trade having been taken