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

Capital Gain declared Rs.21,50,616/- Rs.23,94,924/- Rs 22,19,976/- - 7 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): IPO form Pg 33 to 40 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are I dentical and documents submitted are also same, thus, Ms. Swati Luthra’s (ITA No. 6480/Del/2017) case may be taken

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

Capital Gain declared Rs.21,50,616/- Rs.23,94,924/- Rs 22,19,976/- - 7 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): IPO form Pg 33 to 40 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are I dentical and documents submitted are also same, thus, Ms. Swati Luthra’s (ITA No. 6480/Del/2017) case may be taken

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

Capital Gain declared Rs.21,50,616/- Rs.23,94,924/- Rs 22,19,976/- - 7 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): IPO form Pg 33 to 40 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are I dentical and documents submitted are also same, thus, Ms. Swati Luthra’s (ITA No. 6480/Del/2017) case may be taken

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

Capital Gain declared Rs.21,50,616/- Rs.23,94,924/- Rs 22,19,976/- - 7 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): IPO form Pg 33 to 40 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are I dentical and documents submitted are also same, thus, Ms. Swati Luthra’s (ITA No. 6480/Del/2017) case may be taken

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

Capital Gain declared Rs.21,50,616/- Rs.23,94,924/- Rs 22,19,976/- - 7 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND CIT(A): IPO form Pg 33 to 40 of PB Since the issues involved in all the appeals are I dentical and documents submitted are also same, thus, Ms. Swati Luthra’s (ITA No. 6480/Del/2017) case may be taken

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 44,81,373 5 Addition of amounts paid by WCS 35,50,000 6 Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed income 8,42,92,165 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances made by AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal on various grounds assailing

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

Appeal is allowed

42, 43-46, 48, 49 & 50 of Paper-Book to show the vehement queries raised by AO and replies/documents filed by assessee. Ld. AR demonstrated that the assessee not only filed details qua the eligibility and allowability of exemption u/s 54B but also made an alternative submission to the AO that the sold lands were situated beyond 8 kms. from

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

42,400 0 Investment in House Property u/s 54 Rs. 36,50,051/- Amount deposited in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme u/s 54 Rs. 62,00,000/- Page 10 of 12 Dilip Chandrasenrao Mahadik Assessment year 2015-16 On comparison of these three workings given by assessee, we find substantial mis-matches and variations. To illustrate, in (ii) above, the assessee

PRAGYA SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Pragya Saxena Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Awfps 9685 L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

42,00,000/- is adopted for working of exemption u/s 54F, the new investment made by assessee is Rs. 41,00,000/- only. Since the section 54F prescribed proportionate exemption in the ratio of “new investment ÷ actual consideration”, the exemption would at best be Rs. 57,26,430 (capital gain

SHRI VINOD CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. ITO1 3), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Vinod Choudhary, Ito 1(3) 12, Niranjanpur, Indore Vs. Lasudia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akrpv 4892 Q Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bomb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

42,140/- but without declaring the impugned capital gain. During assessment-proceeding, the assessee submitted that the transaction of sale had taken place in AY 2011-12 and not in AY 2012-13. But, however, the Ld. AO did not accept the submission of assessee and completed assessment after making an addition of Rs. 1,07,93,900/-, being 1/4th

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital gains earned during the year were duly disclosed. The case was not picked up for scrutiny. The time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) for the year had already expired on 30/09/2011. No proceedings were pending against the assessee for this year on the date of search. Hence, it was non- abated year. Therefore, the addition, which could

SMT NARAYAN SUNDRA BAI,INDORE vs. ITO 2 (5), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Narayan Sundra Bai, Ito, 29, Maa Vihar Colony, 2(5), बनाम/ A.B.Road, Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Alzpb1024B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2023

42,12,998/- equivalent to sale consideration (+) estimated cost of Rs. 1,26,390/- incurred by assessee for arranging bogus capital gain. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in first appeal but could not succeed. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us assailing the orders of lower-authorities. 4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

42,021/-\nIncome from other sources...\nRs.56.265/-\nRs.8,56,586/\nAdd: Long term capital gain\nas per para 6 above\nRs.21.68.388/-\nGROSS TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME\nRs.30,24,974/-\nLong term capital gain of Rs.21,68,388/- to be taxed separately\n2.12 That the aforesaid assessment order of Ld. A.O bears\nNo.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1031627237(1) and is dated\n20.03.2021 which is hereinafter referred

SEEMA JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

section 50 C paid additional tax which did not automatically attract the penalty.” 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed her return of income of relevant AY 2012-13 u/s 139 on 31.10.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 44,42,012/- consisting of income from business and long-term capital gain

BIHARILAL,HOSHANGABAD vs. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC-DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Assessment Unit Of Income- Biharilal, Tax Department S/O Gaurishankar, 508, Ward No. 15, बनाम/ Shobhapur, Vs. Hoshangabad (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eonpb2765E Assessee By Ms. Saniya Farhaz Memon, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 50C(2), which was duly requested by the Appellant verbally during the course of assessment. Ground6. The learned A.O. has erred in treating Cost of Acquisition of land to be Rs. NIL ignoring the Fair Market Value as on 01.04.2001 for the purpose of computation of long-term Capital gains. Ground7. The learned A.O. has erred in treating Cost