DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI PRAKASH BHOJWANI, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Shri Prakash Bhojwani, 1(1), H.No. 7, Parika Phase-I, Bhopal Walmi Road, बनाम/ Chuna Bhatti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue / Respondent) (Assessee / Appellant) Pan: Abvpb 8825 E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

36,930/- which was subjected to scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) and the AO completed assessment vide order dated 18.03.2013 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the AO re-opened assessment u/s 147 through notice dated 04.03.2015 u/s 148 which was completed vide order dated 07.10.2015 u/s 147 after making following modifications/ adjustments: (i) Income of Rs. 57,28,867/- originally

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

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

36 (Appeal Memo).\n2.\nThe background facts leading to present appeal are such that the\nassessee-individual filed return of AY 2016-17 declaring a total income of Rs.\n22,60,030/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and notices u/s\n143(2)/142(1) were issued which were complied with by assessee. In the\nreturn of income filed

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

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

36\n(Appeal Memo):\n\nITA No. 556/Ind/2024 – AY 2016-17\n\nPradeep Pinjani\n\n“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was\nnot justified to confirm the addition made by Id. AO by rejecting, without giving\nproper opportunity for production/verification of evidences, of the cost of\nimprovement made

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

36 of the Paper Book filed before us that the appellant earned Long Term Capital Gain in ICI CI Bank, transactions whereof has not been doubted. 18. No independent Enquiry from concerned parties to transaction has also been made by the Ld. A.O as it appears from the records. 19. We find that this scrips of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering

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

36 of the Paper Book filed before us that the appellant earned Long Term Capital Gain in ICI CI Bank, transactions whereof has not been doubted. 18. No independent Enquiry from concerned parties to transaction has also been made by the Ld. A.O as it appears from the records. 19. We find that this scrips of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering

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

36 of the Paper Book filed before us that the appellant earned Long Term Capital Gain in ICI CI Bank, transactions whereof has not been doubted. 18. No independent Enquiry from concerned parties to transaction has also been made by the Ld. A.O as it appears from the records. 19. We find that this scrips of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering

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

36 of the Paper Book filed before us that the appellant earned Long Term Capital Gain in ICI CI Bank, transactions whereof has not been doubted. 18. No independent Enquiry from concerned parties to transaction has also been made by the Ld. A.O as it appears from the records. 19. We find that this scrips of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering

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

36 of the Paper Book filed before us that the appellant earned Long Term Capital Gain in ICI CI Bank, transactions whereof has not been doubted. 18. No independent Enquiry from concerned parties to transaction has also been made by the Ld. A.O as it appears from the records. 19. We find that this scrips of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering

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

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

section 50C. The AO has accepted the capital gain declared by assessee and thus committed an error while completing assessment. 4. Accordingly, Ld. PCIT issued a show-cause notice dated 04.09.2019 by which the assessee was asked to explain as to why the assessment-order may not be revised. In response thereto, the assessee filed submission which is re-produced

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

Appeal is allowed

36-39 of Paper Book; Para No. 1(b) of reply letter dated 05.11.2014 filed by assessee placed at Page No. 43-46 of Paper-Book; Second Para of reply letter filed by assessee placed at Page No. 48 of Paper-Book]. Further, vide\nreply-letter placed at Page No. 48 of Paper-Book, the assessee also filed 2 certificates

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

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

36: 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO has made addition of Rs. 30,46,354/- as income from capital gains in the hands of appellant which is erroneous and should be quashed. Page 1 of 11 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(4), Bhopal ITA No. 208/Ind/2022

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

36 are dismissed as\ninfructuous.\n9.\nGround number - 3 relates to the issue of addition of Rs.39,83,693/- on\naccount of capital gains arising on sale of land, which the assessee has claimed to\nbe sale of rural agricultural lands and the same being not covered by the definition\nof \" capital asset\", as per provisions of section

SMT. SARLA JAIN,KHANDWA vs. ITO WARD 1 KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sarla Jain, Ito, C/O Nakoda Marketing, Ward-1, बनाम/ Bhavani Mata Road, Khandwa Khandwa Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpj1316J Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

section 153C. In that view of matter, we are of the considered view that the AO is very much justified in framing assessment u/s 143(3). Therefore, there is no worth in the ground of assessee. The same is hereby dismissed. Page 15 of 24 Smt.Sarla Jain, Khadwa,vs.ITO,Ward 1, Khanndwa A. Y. : 2015-16 Ground

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project in his original return of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers etc. in respect of the project before the Assessing Officer. We also find that

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project in his original return of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers etc. in respect of the project before the Assessing Officer. We also find that