SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

capital gain arise on transfer of share is exempted u/s 10 (38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the same may please be accepted. As regards, date of purchase of shares, it is humbly submitted that the assessee has purchased 5000 shares of Kappac Pharma Limited on 26/06/2012 for &.60,000/- through broker. The shares are duly appearing in the balance

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

capital gain arise on transfer of share is exempted u/s 10 (38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the same may please be accepted. As regards, date of purchase of shares, it is humbly submitted that the assessee has purchased 5000 shares of Kappac Pharma Limited on 26/06/2012 for &.60,000/- through broker. The shares are duly appearing in the balance

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

capital gain arise on transfer of share is exempted u/s 10 (38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the same may please be accepted. As regards, date of purchase of shares, it is humbly submitted that the assessee has purchased 5000 shares of Kappac Pharma Limited on 26/06/2012 for &.60,000/- through broker. The shares are duly appearing in the balance

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

capital gain arise on transfer of share is exempted u/s 10 (38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the same may please be accepted. As regards, date of purchase of shares, it is humbly submitted that the assessee has purchased 5000 shares of Kappac Pharma Limited on 26/06/2012 for &.60,000/- through broker. The shares are duly appearing in the balance

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

capital gain arise on transfer of share is exempted u/s 10 (38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the same may please be accepted. As regards, date of purchase of shares, it is humbly submitted that the assessee has purchased 5000 shares of Kappac Pharma Limited on 26/06/2012 for &.60,000/- through broker. The shares are duly appearing in the balance

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

capital gain arise on transfer of share is exempted u/s 10 (38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the same may please be accepted. As regards, date of purchase of shares, it is humbly submitted that the assessee has purchased 5000 shares of Kappac Pharma Limited on 26/06/2012 for &.60,000/- through broker. The shares are duly appearing in the balance

SMT SHILPA DESAI ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Desai, Indore Pan – Abzpd 4926 A … Appellant Vs. Pcit-I, Indore … Respondent

section 54EC/54F was very well examined by the Assessing officer and after application of his mind the claim has been allowed by him. It is not a case of no enquiry rather it is a case of complete enquiry by the Ld. Assessing officer who after calling all the necessary documents examined the transaction of Long Term Capital Gain

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

282. Page 5 of 17 ITA Nos.215 & others Ind/2019 Sheela Agarwal and Ankur Agarwal Page 6 of 17 6. The assessee is a regular investor in shares for last 15 to 20 years and this fact is also evident from the statement of the assessee recorded by the AO. It is not necessary that the assessee must have the knowledge

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

282. Page 5 of 17 ITA Nos.215 & others Ind/2019 Sheela Agarwal and Ankur Agarwal Page 6 of 17 6. The assessee is a regular investor in shares for last 15 to 20 years and this fact is also evident from the statement of the assessee recorded by the AO. It is not necessary that the assessee must have the knowledge

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

282. Page 5 of 17 ITA Nos.215 & others Ind/2019 Sheela Agarwal and Ankur Agarwal Page 6 of 17 6. The assessee is a regular investor in shares for last 15 to 20 years and this fact is also evident from the statement of the assessee recorded by the AO. It is not necessary that the assessee must have the knowledge

SHRI KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT -1 , BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

282, Rohit Nagar, Phase-1, Bhopal. Bawadiakala, Bhopal. [PAN – ABVPK 2942 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 17.10.2022 Date of pronouncement : 22.11.2022 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the PCIT-1, Bhopal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 (1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJEEV PATNI, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

Capital Gains without offering any opportunity to assessing officer and relying only on computation given by assessee for holding period. 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case} Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,64,64,619/- based on credits in bank accounts to Rs. 4,05,223/- only without giving

SHRI SANJEEV PATNI,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

Capital Gains without offering any opportunity to assessing officer and relying only on computation given by assessee for holding period. 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case} Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,64,64,619/- based on credits in bank accounts to Rs. 4,05,223/- only without giving

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos. 227 & 228/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & & 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highway Limited, Income-Tax (Central)-I, 76, Mall Road, Mhow, Indore. Indore.

Section 14A cannot be invoked if earning of exempt income is based on certain uncertainty and contingencies. (b) If the investment has the potential of generating taxable income like short term capital gain, disallowance U/s. 14A could not be invoked. (c) If during the year under consideration, the assessee has not earned the exempt income, provision of sec.14A

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos. 227 & 228/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & & 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highway Limited, Income-Tax (Central)-I, 76, Mall Road, Mhow, Indore. Indore.

Section 14A cannot be invoked if earning of exempt income is based on certain uncertainty and contingencies. (b) If the investment has the potential of generating taxable income like short term capital gain, disallowance U/s. 14A could not be invoked. (c) If during the year under consideration, the assessee has not earned the exempt income, provision of sec.14A

BADAM SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO 4(1) , BHOPAL

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibadam Singh, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 392 Gram Palasi, 4(1), Vs. New Jail Road, Bhopal Karond, Bhopal (Pan: Drhps5664B) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

282 of the Act. However, there has been no response from the appellant till date. There is no gain saying that once the appeal is filed by the appellant, it is obligatory on its part to pursue the same in a Page 2 of 10 Badam Singh ITA No. 127/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2013-14 worthwhile manner, which the appellant has failed

BHAV SINGH RAJPUT ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2016-17 Bhav Singh Rajput Ito -5(4) 4, Leeladhar Bhopal बनाम/ Narlashankari Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Atgps2541H Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.01.2025

capital gains arising out of transfer of lands used for agricultural purpose . The appellant claimed to have invested Rs.15,50,000/- on account of purchase of agricultural lands , but the he was not able to substantiate the said claim by production of proper documentary evidences to the satisfaction of the AO , and the evidences produced were not complete documents

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

capital gains were clearly available before the\nAssessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings and that the\nRevenue had not brought any material before it, which was not disclosed by\nthe assessee in the original return of income. Thus, the Tribunal concluded\nthat there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material\nfact relevant