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

2) The amount of the 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

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

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

36 as re-produced in the\nbeginning, the assessee's grievance is such that the CIT(A) has erred in\nconfirming the action of AO in denying benefit of exemption u/s 11/12 to\nassessee. We have already noted the facts at length in earlier Para 2 of this\norder and the repetition is not required. Suffice it to say that

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

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

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

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 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

SARSWATI VIDHYA PRATISHTHAN M.P ,BHUPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

36 to 42 of the paper book. He has submitted that in this program all the arrangements for seminars, Page 3 of 25 Sarswati Vidhya Partishthan M.P. Page 4 of 25 conferences, meetings, stay of participants and food etc. was madeand the total expense for such program was Rs. 98,45,124/-. In this program around 10,000 Teachers, Principals

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission