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 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

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

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

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 26.12.2018 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Bhopal [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 07.10.2015 passed by learned ACIT, 1(1), Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year

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

D-MAT accounts. Therefore, it is incorrect notion of the Revenue that these shares are bogus shares, on the contrary these shares are genuine and lawfully issued share by the company by following the law and procedure in this regard. The Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon report of Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department which was conducted in Kolkata

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/- in the construction of new house and an amount of Rs 46,13,000/-has been deposited by him in the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme Account. Thus, total investment as made by the appellant was to the tune of Rs 89,44,991/-. Thus, the appellant had properly claimed deduction under section 54F of the Income

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

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 09.04.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 11.12.2017 passed by ITO, 3(5), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year

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 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

d) order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, Principal CIT has revised the order on the ground that the A.O. has failed to make enquiries or verification, which

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

d) order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, Principal CIT has revised the order on the ground that the A.O. has failed to make enquiries or verification, which

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

d) order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, Principal CIT has revised the order on the ground that the A.O. has failed to make enquiries or verification, which

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

d) order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, Principal CIT has revised the order on the ground that the A.O. has failed to make enquiries or verification, which

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

d) order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, Principal CIT has revised the order on the ground that the A.O. has failed to make enquiries or verification, which

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

d) order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, which is prejudicial to the assessee rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, Principal CIT has revised the order on the ground that the A.O. has failed to make enquiries or verification, which

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

capital gain of Rs. 27,50,406/- is enclosed:- S.No. Particulars Page No M/s IDEA Cellular Limited 1 Copy of D-mat statement of the assessee 25 with the Union Bank of India for the period 01/04/2013 to 31/03/2014 2 Sale note Dt. 18/11/2013 for sale of 5,590 26-27 shares issued by Indira Securities Pvt. Ltd M/s Sunrise

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

D E R PER BENCH:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption

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

D E R PER BENCH:- The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee(s) are directed against separate orders of different dates passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- II, Indore u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O upon disallowing exemption