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

45/- on transfer of virtual digital asset. 8. In so far as the first two elements of tax liability, viz. tax of Rs. 12/- on short-term capital gain u/s 111A (+) tax of Rs. 22,279/- on long-term capital gain u/s 112 are concerned, the issue is well covered by following decisions of ITAT benches in favour of assessee

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

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

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

capital gain which is not utilised by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being Page 18 of 20 ITANo.168/Ind/2023 Imran Khan made in any case not later than the due date applicable

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) does not leave any ambiguity. It clearly says that\nthe scrutiny was initiated to examine the "value of consideration

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

5 of 10 Keshav Kanungo, Bhopal ITA No. 263/Ind/2023 – AY 2015-16 allowed proportionate exemption u/s 54F and the assessee is not against proportionate system which is very much prescribed in section 54F. 9. However, Ld. AR submitted that the case of assessee has a totally different dimension which is not addressed by any of the lower-authorities and that

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

gain u/s 45(3) of Rs.1,54,75,988/- is not at all possible. Looking to the facts of the case, the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54B is totally wrong. Therefore, in view of the above, wrong claim of exemption u/s 54B of Rs. 1,54,75,988/- is hereby disallowed and accordingly added to the total

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 of 11 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 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

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

section 45(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Page 5 of 8 Munshiram Balkishan Verma ITA No.8 & 9/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2008-09 capital gain

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

section 45(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Page 5 of 8 Munshiram Balkishan Verma ITA No.8 & 9/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2008-09 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

Capital Gain and without denying the exemption claimed under Section 54B & 54F. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No. 4166 of 2006 order dated 19.04.2018). The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer wrongly interpreted the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 – year-end investment in shares for Rs.93.44 Lacs and another investment of Rs.103.50 Lacs in share warrants. The perusal of the Balance Sheet would show that a substantial portion of assessee’s capital has been ploughed back by way of investments. On the basis of all these facts, it could very well be concluded that the impugned transactions

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 – year-end investment in shares for Rs.93.44 Lacs and another investment of Rs.103.50 Lacs in share warrants. The perusal of the Balance Sheet would show that a substantial portion of assessee’s capital has been ploughed back by way of investments. On the basis of all these facts, it could very well be concluded that the impugned transactions

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

5 – year-end investment in shares for Rs.93.44 Lacs and another investment of Rs.103.50 Lacs in share warrants. The perusal of the Balance Sheet would show that a substantial portion of assessee’s capital has been ploughed back by way of investments. On the basis of all these facts, it could very well be concluded that the impugned transactions