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

section 10(38) of the IT Act. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of stock and gradually rise its price many times from 500 to 1000 times. This is done through low volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price. Ld. D/R also submitted that the AO after discussing the modus

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of stock and gradually rise its price many times from 500 to 1000 times. This is done through low volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price. Ld. D/R also submitted that the AO after discussing the modus

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of stock and gradually rise its price many times from 500 to 1000 times. This is done through low volume transaction indulged in by the dummies of the operator at a pre-determined price. Ld. D/R also submitted that the AO after discussing the modus

PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

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

Capital Gain u/s 10(38) of the Act arising from sale of equity shares of Sunrise Asian Limited at Rs.1,40,95,302/-. Case was selected for scrutiny assessment Ayush Jain & Ors ITA No.616, 617/Ind/2019 & 293&294/Ind/2020 through CASS and notice u/s 142(1) was duly served upon the assessee. Detailed questionnaire was also issued. Details submissions were filed

SHRI NILESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

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

Capital Gain u/s 10(38) of the Act arising from sale of equity shares of Sunrise Asian Limited at Rs.1,40,95,302/-. Case was selected for scrutiny assessment Ayush Jain & Ors ITA No.616, 617/Ind/2019 & 293&294/Ind/2020 through CASS and notice u/s 142(1) was duly served upon the assessee. Detailed questionnaire was also issued. Details submissions were filed

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

302 ITR 286 (Mad. H.C.) iii. Mrs. Seetha Subramanian vs. ACIT 56 TTJ 417(Mad.) iv. Smt. Ranjeet Sandhu vs. DCIT 133 TTJ 64 ITAT,(Tribunal).” In support of contention that exemption u/s 54 would be available even if the construction within statutory period, where the entire sale consideration is interested in purchase of land/construction of house

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

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

capital gain should be taxed in the year of entering in to agreement. Dr. Maya Shenoy v. Asst. CIT [2009] 124TTJ (Hyd.) The assessee entered into agreement with ASR for construction of flats. According to theagreement the developer was to be Page 11 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla handed overthe possession of the said land and in turn

BHAGWAT PRASAD MALVIYA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

Capital Gains Account. The FD matured on 05.04.2014, and no evidence was provided that the amount was utilized for purchasing a residential house after that. 9.14 Only one investment in residential property (Rs. 21,41,000 on 26.07.2013) was supported by documentation, which AO correctly allowed under section 54F. 9.15 Hence, out of the total claimed exemption

THE DY. CIT 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. RYDER TRANS INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2012-13

302 (Trib. Indore) conditions regarding assessee being registered as well as benefincial shareholder of the lender company are required to be established in the present case, the assessee is neither a registered nor a beneficial shareholder of the lender company. Reliance was placed on the judgments as under: (a)ACIT vs Bhoumik Colour

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

302 (SC)\n(ii)PCIT-4 vs. Zydus Wellness Ltd 113 taxmann.com 154 (SC)\n(iii)PCIT vs. Zydus Welness Ltd. 87 taxmann.com 82 (Guj)\n(iv)CIT vs. RFCL Ltd. 57 taxmann.com 17 (Himachal Pradesh)\n(v)Triune Energy Services P. Itd. vs. DCIT 65 taxmann.com 288 (Delhi HC)\n(vi)B. Raveendran Pillai vs. CIT 194 taxman

THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S ANANT STEEL P LTD, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee raised vide ITA

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

Capital Expenditure 53,500 Total addition 10,18,44,627 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld CIT(A). 4 Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd ITA No.820 & 876/Ind/2018 The Learned CIT(A) following the order as passed for the Assessment Year 2012- 13 restricted the amount of Net profit at 2.30% of total sales

M/S ANANT STEEL P LTD,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee raised vide ITA

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

Capital Expenditure 53,500 Total addition 10,18,44,627 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld CIT(A). 4 Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd ITA No.820 & 876/Ind/2018 The Learned CIT(A) following the order as passed for the Assessment Year 2012- 13 restricted the amount of Net profit at 2.30% of total sales