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

5 Annapurna Maheshwari & Pradeep Maheshwari ITA No.315/Ind/2012, 252/Ind/2016 & 53/Ind/2014 provided by the assessee but she failed to get any favour from the Ld.A.O, and he treated the alleged Short Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.41,29,512/- as income from other sources and assessed total income of Rs.46,16,410/-. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld.CIT

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

5 Annapurna Maheshwari & Pradeep Maheshwari ITA No.315/Ind/2012, 252/Ind/2016 & 53/Ind/2014 provided by the assessee but she failed to get any favour from the Ld.A.O, and he treated the alleged Short Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.41,29,512/- as income from other sources and assessed total income of Rs.46,16,410/-. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld.CIT

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

5 Annapurna Maheshwari & Pradeep Maheshwari ITA No.315/Ind/2012, 252/Ind/2016 & 53/Ind/2014 provided by the assessee but she failed to get any favour from the Ld.A.O, and he treated the alleged Short Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.41,29,512/- as income from other sources and assessed total income of Rs.46,16,410/-. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld.CIT

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

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

5. We have heard Mr.KavinGulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnana, learned senior counsel who appeared for the revenue. 6.According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witness by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes

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 143(3) of IT, Act, 1961 at Rs.3,17,71,700/- 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.2,15,542/- and allowed the assessee’s claim of profit from purchase and sale of equity shares held for less

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

43,31,991 Less Investment by way of deposit in Capital Gain Deposit Scheme u/s 54 F(4) utilized 46,13,000 in next year towards construction of house. Total Investment u/s 54 F 89,44,991 89,44,991 Net Income from Long Term Capital Gain 1,93,656 3. The case of the assessee was selected for limited

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

43 (Bang- Trib) 8. Kannan Chandrashekar Vs. ITO (2017) 82 taxmann.com 284 (Chennai- Trib) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that Section 54F(4) of the Act stipulates that for claiming the benefit of Capital Gain

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

5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the written submissions contending that both the transactions of purchase and sales are genuine and rightful claim has been made for Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of VIP Industries Limited and further added that as on date also VIP Industries Limited is a listed company

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE 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

5. Thus, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in respect to the above issue. 6. The order of the AO is, therefore, set aside to the file of the AO with direction to examine the issue, as discussed above, and after affording proper opportunity to the assessee. The order dated 22.12.2016 passed

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

5. Thus, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in respect to the above issue. 6. The order of the AO is, therefore, set aside to the file of the AO with direction to examine the issue, as discussed above, and after affording proper opportunity to the assessee. The order dated 22.12.2016 passed

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE 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

5. Thus, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in respect to the above issue. 6. The order of the AO is, therefore, set aside to the file of the AO with direction to examine the issue, as discussed above, and after affording proper opportunity to the assessee. The order dated 22.12.2016 passed

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

5. Thus, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in respect to the above issue. 6. The order of the AO is, therefore, set aside to the file of the AO with direction to examine the issue, as discussed above, and after affording proper opportunity to the assessee. The order dated 22.12.2016 passed

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

5. Thus, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in respect to the above issue. 6. The order of the AO is, therefore, set aside to the file of the AO with direction to examine the issue, as discussed above, and after affording proper opportunity to the assessee. The order dated 22.12.2016 passed

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE 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

5. Thus, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in respect to the above issue. 6. The order of the AO is, therefore, set aside to the file of the AO with direction to examine the issue, as discussed above, and after affording proper opportunity to the assessee. The order dated 22.12.2016 passed

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

5 That in view of the above, 'in the present case, the assessing officer make detailed inquiry and after duly verification. from the documents as submitted by the assessee, claim of long term. capital. gain as exempt u/» 10138) of the Act was accepted by the assessing officer which on the basis of documents as furnished by the assessee

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

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