IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

capital gain which is not utilised by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being Page 18 of 20 ITANo.168/Ind/2023 Imran Khan made in any case not later than the due date applicable

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n\nसीमित संवीक्षा (कम्प्यूटर आधारित संवीक्षा चयन)\n\nLimited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection)\n\nयह आपको सूचित किया जाता है कि कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2016-17 की आयकर विवरणी जो कि पावती संख्या 504695131161016\nदिनांक 16/10/2016 को दाखिल किया गया था, सीमित संवीक्षा हेतु चयनित है।\nThis is for your

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

28 to 29 of PB DP statement Pg 30 to 32 of PB 6 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Details of long term capital gain claimed as exempt under section

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

28 to 29 of PB DP statement Pg 30 to 32 of PB 6 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Details of long term capital gain claimed as exempt under section

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

28 to 29 of PB DP statement Pg 30 to 32 of PB 6 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Details of long term capital gain claimed as exempt under section

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

28 to 29 of PB DP statement Pg 30 to 32 of PB 6 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Details of long term capital gain claimed as exempt under section

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

28 to 29 of PB DP statement Pg 30 to 32 of PB 6 Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8,29,30,& 113/Ind/2019 Details of long term capital gain claimed as exempt under section

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

capital gain from long-term to short-term based on holding period demonstrated by De- mat A/c, since the assessee has no grievance and accepted the same, we have no point to offer anything from our side. That brings us to conclude that there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by CIT(A); we uphold the same

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

28,176/- Govind Capital Agrawal HUF Darshan Bogus Vas Infra- 7,43,099/- - Kumar Loss structure Pahwa 5. The impugned additions made by the Ld. A.O are on a common reasoning that the alleged capital gain/ loss have been earned/incurred are from sale of equity shares of penny stock companies which have seen abnormal price rise in short span Shivnarayan

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

28,176/- Govind Capital Agrawal HUF Darshan Bogus Vas Infra- 7,43,099/- - Kumar Loss structure Pahwa 5. The impugned additions made by the Ld. A.O are on a common reasoning that the alleged capital gain/ loss have been earned/incurred are from sale of equity shares of penny stock companies which have seen abnormal price rise in short span Shivnarayan

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

28,176/- Govind Capital Agrawal HUF Darshan Bogus Vas Infra- 7,43,099/- - Kumar Loss structure Pahwa 5. The impugned additions made by the Ld. A.O are on a common reasoning that the alleged capital gain/ loss have been earned/incurred are from sale of equity shares of penny stock companies which have seen abnormal price rise in short span Shivnarayan

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

28,176/- Govind Capital Agrawal HUF Darshan Bogus Vas Infra- 7,43,099/- - Kumar Loss structure Pahwa 5. The impugned additions made by the Ld. A.O are on a common reasoning that the alleged capital gain/ loss have been earned/incurred are from sale of equity shares of penny stock companies which have seen abnormal price rise in short span Shivnarayan

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

28,176/- Govind Capital Agrawal HUF Darshan Bogus Vas Infra- 7,43,099/- - Kumar Loss structure Pahwa 5. The impugned additions made by the Ld. A.O are on a common reasoning that the alleged capital gain/ loss have been earned/incurred are from sale of equity shares of penny stock companies which have seen abnormal price rise in short span Shivnarayan

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

28,176/- Govind Capital Agrawal HUF Darshan Bogus Vas Infra- 7,43,099/- - Kumar Loss structure Pahwa 5. The impugned additions made by the Ld. A.O are on a common reasoning that the alleged capital gain/ loss have been earned/incurred are from sale of equity shares of penny stock companies which have seen abnormal price rise in short span Shivnarayan

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

28,01,200 0 Amount deposited in Capital Gains Accounts scheme u/s 54 Rs. 37,00,000 (ii) Computation filed before PCIT – (copy placed at Page No. 63 of Paper-Book and also re-produced by PCIT in revision-order): Long Term Capital Gain 1. Building 31.03.2015 Page 9 of 12 Dilip Chandrasenrao Mahadik Assessment year 2015-16 Value

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

28, 29-30, 32, 35, 36-39, 42, 43-46, 48, 49 & 50 of Paper-Book to show the vehement queries raised by AO and replies/documents filed by assessee. Ld. AR demonstrated that the assessee not only filed details qua the eligibility and allowability of exemption u/s 54B but also made an alternative submission to the AO that the sold

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Capital gain as shown\nAdd: Unexplained Cash Deposit\nTotal assessed income u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act 1961\nRs.111387/-\nRs.44018/-\nRs.861000/-\nRs.928369/-\n[Emphasis supplied]\nNow, we re-produce the adjudication made by CIT(A) in first-appeal:\n\"5.1.2.\nThe appellant's arguments have been carefully considered. While\nthe appellant repeatedly asserts that the Assessing Officer (AO) should

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

28- 2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings