SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHOURSIYA, RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 10(37) of the Act subject to conditions specified therein. However, since land compulsorily acquired by the Government in the present case was a rural agricultural land, there arises no question of taxability of capital gain on compulsory acquisition of such land. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.9

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

section 45; and for the purpose of computing in respect any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase, the cost shall be reduced, by the amount of the capital gain] (2

KANHAIYA LAL PANCHAL,RATLAM vs. BPL-W-(91)(95), RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2024-25 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Bpl-W-(91)(95) 1, Jadwasa Kala, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqrpp0055D Assessee By Shri Kaide Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

section 112. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in placing reliance on the "Memorandum explaining provisions of the Finance Bill, 2025" as a basis for interpretation, even Page 2 of 12 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal ITA No. 702/Ind/2025 – AY 2024-25 though such memorandum does not have the force of law and cannot override the plain language of the statute. 5.That

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

section 45(1)/48, the capital gain has to be\nworked out after deducting costs/exemption but we are concerned with the\nissue for examination in limited scrutiny. The issue No. (ii) mentioned by AO\nin the notice u/s 143(2

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

45(1) does not include section 54EC exemption section in line to\nother exemption sections and therefore any rational given under section 54EC\nshall not be interpreted to other exemption sections including 54F as legislature\nitself intended to keep it separate.\nIn our current case we are dealing with the facts of reinvestment under section\n54F which mandates assessee

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

2(4), Bhopal ITA No. 208/Ind/2022 – AY 2009-10 “The assessee sold her house property for Rs. 45 lacs and claimed deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The assessee was served with a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, as to why the amount deducted be not added

SMT HAFIZ SHAIKH,DEWAS vs. THE ITO WARD-1, DEWAS

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihafiz Shaikh Ito Ward-1 32/2, Laxmi Park Moti Dewas Vs. Bunglow Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajups6986 L Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023

section 45 2. The assessee craves to add/alter any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing 2. The solitary issue arises in this appeal of the assessee is whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in upholding denial of claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act in respect of the capital gain

KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: XXX Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— "net consideration", in relation to the transfer of a capital asset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

capital gain tax.\n9. 3. To resolve this controversy it is relevant to discuss the provisions of\nsection 2(14)(/77) of the LT. Act, 1961 which defines the agricultural land\nand reads as under\n"'Agricultural land' in India, not being land situate—\n(a)In any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality\n(whether

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

45,41,400/- in Previous Year 2010-11 relevant to AY\n2011-12. Accordingly, relying upon the provision of section 68(1), the CIT(A)\nalso held that the receipt to the extent of Rs.42,01,80,700/- found credited\nin books of assessee of AY 2010-11 cannot be taxed in AY 2011-12, the\nsame needs

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

2 per share Total purchase consideration paid Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Date of shares sold 23.07.2013 06.09.2013 19.10.2013 24.09.2013 (3000 shares), (10000 shares) (10000 shares) 03.09.2013 (3000 shares) and 10.09.2013 (4000 shares) Sale Price per share Rs. 314.88, Rs. 276.70 Rs. 178. 85 Rs. 182.60 Rs. 151.25 per share per share

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

2 per share Total purchase consideration paid Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Date of shares sold 23.07.2013 06.09.2013 19.10.2013 24.09.2013 (3000 shares), (10000 shares) (10000 shares) 03.09.2013 (3000 shares) and 10.09.2013 (4000 shares) Sale Price per share Rs. 314.88, Rs. 276.70 Rs. 178. 85 Rs. 182.60 Rs. 151.25 per share per share

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

2 per share Total purchase consideration paid Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Date of shares sold 23.07.2013 06.09.2013 19.10.2013 24.09.2013 (3000 shares), (10000 shares) (10000 shares) 03.09.2013 (3000 shares) and 10.09.2013 (4000 shares) Sale Price per share Rs. 314.88, Rs. 276.70 Rs. 178. 85 Rs. 182.60 Rs. 151.25 per share per share

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

2 per share Total purchase consideration paid Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Date of shares sold 23.07.2013 06.09.2013 19.10.2013 24.09.2013 (3000 shares), (10000 shares) (10000 shares) 03.09.2013 (3000 shares) and 10.09.2013 (4000 shares) Sale Price per share Rs. 314.88, Rs. 276.70 Rs. 178. 85 Rs. 182.60 Rs. 151.25 per share per share

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

2 per share Total purchase consideration paid Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Rs. 20, 000/- Date of shares sold 23.07.2013 06.09.2013 19.10.2013 24.09.2013 (3000 shares), (10000 shares) (10000 shares) 03.09.2013 (3000 shares) and 10.09.2013 (4000 shares) Sale Price per share Rs. 314.88, Rs. 276.70 Rs. 178. 85 Rs. 182.60 Rs. 151.25 per share per share

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

capital and revenue. It only mandates that expenditure should be on the objects of trust which is very clear from above submission that the expenditure incurred was towards the objects of the trust. 3.5 In support of his contention he has relied upon the following judgements: i.[2007] 14 SOT 318 (Mumbai)[22-12-2005] Institute of Marine Engineers

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

capital gain tax on such transaction will be levied as per the provisions of section 45 of the Act. (i) There is an agreement to sale for purchase/sale of the property between the buyer and seller (ii) Part consideration has been passed to seller from the buyer (iii) Possession of the property under consideration has been passed

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