MANISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM 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

4) (KOLKATTA) TRIBUNAL) I.T.A. No. 161/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (2021) (Pages 217 – 226 of Case Laws Paper Book) 14. ACHAL GUPTA Vs. ITO (LUCKNOW TRIBUNAL) – (2021) (Pages 227 – 242 of Case Laws Paper Book 15. Pr CIT-12, Delhi Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Others (DELHI HIGH COURT) – (2021) (Pages 243 – 252 of Case Laws Paper Book) 16. Anraj Hiralal

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

4) (KOLKATTA) TRIBUNAL) I.T.A. No. 161/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (2021) (Pages 217 – 226 of Case Laws Paper Book) 14. ACHAL GUPTA Vs. ITO (LUCKNOW TRIBUNAL) – (2021) (Pages 227 – 242 of Case Laws Paper Book 15. Pr CIT-12, Delhi Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Others (DELHI HIGH COURT) – (2021) (Pages 243 – 252 of Case Laws Paper Book) 16. Anraj Hiralal

VIJAY RADHESHYAM NYATI HUF,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

4) (KOLKATTA) TRIBUNAL) I.T.A. No. 161/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (2021) (Pages 217 – 226 of Case Laws Paper Book) 14. ACHAL GUPTA Vs. ITO (LUCKNOW TRIBUNAL) – (2021) (Pages 227 – 242 of Case Laws Paper Book 15. Pr CIT-12, Delhi Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Others (DELHI HIGH COURT) – (2021) (Pages 243 – 252 of Case Laws Paper Book) 16. Anraj Hiralal

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

4) (KOLKATTA) TRIBUNAL) I.T.A. No. 161/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (2021) (Pages 217 – 226 of Case Laws Paper Book) 14. ACHAL GUPTA Vs. ITO (LUCKNOW TRIBUNAL) – (2021) (Pages 227 – 242 of Case Laws Paper Book 15. Pr CIT-12, Delhi Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Others (DELHI HIGH COURT) – (2021) (Pages 243 – 252 of Case Laws Paper Book) 16. Anraj Hiralal

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

4) (KOLKATTA) TRIBUNAL) I.T.A. No. 161/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (2021) (Pages 217 – 226 of Case Laws Paper Book) 14. ACHAL GUPTA Vs. ITO (LUCKNOW TRIBUNAL) – (2021) (Pages 227 – 242 of Case Laws Paper Book 15. Pr CIT-12, Delhi Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Others (DELHI HIGH COURT) – (2021) (Pages 243 – 252 of Case Laws Paper Book) 16. Anraj Hiralal

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

capital gains of Rs. 99,40,150 and added to the income of the assessee. 4. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) observed that the assessee has sold the Shri Sushil Kumar Bafna, Ujjain v. ITO-1(1) /I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014/A.Y.:10-11 Page 7 of 24 land

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

41,683/-. During the year under consideration the assessee claimed long term capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/ - on a scrip named Shri Nidhi Trading Limited. On scrutinizing the complete transaction the total sale value came to Rs.36,72,631/- and total purchase value came to Rs.2,07,460/-. The assessee accordingly showed capital gain of Rs.34

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

41,683/-. During the year under consideration the assessee claimed long term capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/ - on a scrip named Shri Nidhi Trading Limited. On scrutinizing the complete transaction the total sale value came to Rs.36,72,631/- and total purchase value came to Rs.2,07,460/-. The assessee accordingly showed capital gain of Rs.34

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

41,683/-. During the year under consideration the assessee claimed long term capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/ - on a scrip named Shri Nidhi Trading Limited. On scrutinizing the complete transaction the total sale value came to Rs.36,72,631/- and total purchase value came to Rs.2,07,460/-. The assessee accordingly showed capital gain of Rs.34

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

section 131 and in course of examination, he stated that all records of purchase and sale of shares were lost and thus, the actual purchase and sale of shares could not be verified. The AO, therefore, treated the 'capital gain' as bogus and disallowed the long-term 'capital gain', sought to be exempted under

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Capital Gain Account Scheme 1988 and deduction u/s 54Fwas allowable or not. 4.4 You have also claimed to have invested Rs. 43,31,991/ up to the date of filing of' return in construction of a, new house (apparently AN 28-29). However, on perusal of the balance sheet plated on record that a; on 311312014 there is 'House Account

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. DR. SHRI RAJEEV CHAUDHARY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Pan : Abkpc5729K Assistant Commissioner Of V/S Dr.Rajeev Choudhary Income Tax, 1, Shiv Vilas Palace Circle-2(1), Indore Indore

section 14A to be read with Rule ~ 8D of IT Rules, 1962 without pointing out his dissatisfaction for claim of expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning dividend income of Rs. 4,37,354/-. i. The appellant provided full details of expenses at Rs. 5,27,267/- out of which is already disallowed expenses of Rs. 66,700/- for long

VISHAL GIFT CENTRE - LLP,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 2(14)(iii)(b), and (ii) the\nassessee sold land to a builder after obtaining diversion for non-\nagricultural use, therefore the land was not 'agricultural'. Ultimately,\nthe AO completed assessment after assessing a long-term capital gain\nof Rs.1,04,95,230/- and Rs.1,49,41,169/- respectively from\nimpugned transactions, thereby making an aggregate addition

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

gain under Section 54F of the Act. It was, rejected by the ITO as also by the Tribunal. This Court observed that substantial investment was made in construction of the house. In view of the requirement of Section 54F of the Act, the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified. We are fortified

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

section 43(5). The remaining transactions have resulted in short term capital gain. Therefore, the AO’s action in treating the entire short term capital of Rs. 57,28,867/- as business income was incorrect, unjustified and arbitrary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 7,52,383/- only pertaining to the intraday sale

SARITA BAGDI ,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD-4(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

41,683/-. During the year under 22 Smt. Sarita Bagdi consideration the assessee claimed long term capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/ - on a scrip named Shri Nidhi Trading Limited. On scrutinizing the complete transaction the total sale value came to Rs.36,72,631/- and total purchase value came to Rs.2,07,460/-. The assessee accordingly showed capital gain

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

4. The relevant explanation to section 263 is reproduced as below :- Explanation 2 – “For the purpose of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

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

4. The relevant explanation to section 263 is reproduced as below :- Explanation 2 – “For the purpose of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner