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

capital gain on the basis of sale consideration of Rs. 65,30,000/- and not on the basis of the valuation of stamps authority at Rs. 1,23,30,000/- as required by section 50C

M/S MALVIKA AGROTECH PVT. LTD.,DHAR vs. THE ITO-2(2), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Malvika Agrotech Ito, 2(2), Pvt. Ltd, Indore Plot No.185, Sector-1, Pithampur, Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaccm6451G Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri C.P. Rawka,Ca Date Of Hearing 10.09.2018 Date Of 19.9.2018 Pronouncement

50C were not applicable as the asset was a business asset being industrial land. Appellant also contended that the transaction was not entered in the books of accounts as representative of the company who participated in the auction of the said land did not inform the company and made the payment out of funds of Speed Automobile. Further after purchase

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 50C of the Act and, therefore, the long term capital gain was wrongly claimed and the amount was treated as income from other sources. 9.2 The appellant has submitted that a land at Lalghati, Bhopal, was acquired by his father which was transferred in the name of his mother on father’s death. The mother executed a will

SHRI SUNIL SHASRMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11

capital gain and also provision of section 50C of the Act are not applicable. It was also submitted that the person in whose favour in which the property has been gifted has also been assessed by Ld. DCIT-5(1

SHRI DR. LIYAKAT ALI KAPADIYA,UJJAIN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2013-14

1), Ujjain :: Respondent Assessee by Shri Manoj Fadnis, CA Respondent by Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.3.2019 Date of pronouncement 25.3.2019 O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)- Ujjain, dated 05.7.2017. 2. First ground raised by the assessee is that

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

capital gain on the basis of intimation already on record of the A.O. which does not amount to breach of of section 50C for attracting penalty u/s 271(1

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

1,26,54,892 Value as per DVO in consideration accordance with provisions of section 50C. This value has not been disputed either by Ld. AO or by Ld. 17 Satyanarayan Sharma /ITANo.426/Ind/2018 Pr.CIT. 2 Less: Indexed Cost of 4,26,000 Acquisition (FY 1981-1982) Not disputed either by Ld. 3 Long Term Capital Gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

1 of Revenue. Ground No. 2: 14. In this Ground, the issue involved is the addition of Rs. 68,79,170/- made by Ld. AO by way of short-term capital gain by invoking section 50C

SHRI DINESH NIGAM,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (3), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned ITO treating the land as capital asset determined Net LTCG to the tune of Rs.41,13,018/- and over ruled the contention of appellant that the subject land is not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Thus, the whole controversy

M/S SIDDHULA;L,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

capital gain, which is bad in law, void ab initio, illegal, contrary to the facts, records, submissions and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. Page 1 of 14 M/s.Siddhulal Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(2), Bhopal ITA No. 110/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12 (2) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in denial of deduction u/s 54B of the Income

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. SMT. SMITA PANDEY, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Smt. Smita Pandey, Income Tax (Central)-I Vs. E-2/182, Arera Colony, Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Adlpp5384Q Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 27.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2019 O R D E R

section 2(14) of the Income tax act hence capital gain on such land is not attracted. For reference, Copy of certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat is enclosed herewith. Sir, it is further submitted that the assessee wants to show this transaction in her return but in return there is column for sale of capital assets only and hence

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain, copy of purchase and sale deed of property, expenses relating to transfer of property. The entire details including the bank statement as submitted by the assessee before the ITO is appearing from Page Nos. 63 to 82 of the Paper Book filed before us. In fact, Page 63 is the acknowledgement of reply in respect of the notice

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain, copy of purchase and sale deed of property, expenses relating to transfer of property. The entire details including the bank statement as submitted by the assessee before the ITO is appearing from Page Nos. 63 to 82 of the Paper Book filed before us. In fact, Page 63 is the acknowledgement of reply in respect of the notice

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

capital gain of Rs. 1,29,73,500/- ignoring the consideration shown in documents of transfer of land and in the ITR filed by the appellant in response to notice issued u/s 148. Ground5. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the assessment order without applying the provisions of Section 50C

M/S OMPRAKASH MITTAL,INDORE vs. ITO 2(2), INDORE

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

gain at Rs. Page 5 of 9 M/s Omprakash Mittal Assessment year 2017-18 11,38,020. Section 50C is a deeming provision wherein the fair market value for sale consideration received on an asset is deemed to be taken as per the value assessed or adopted by the stamp valuation authority for the purpose of stamp duty. Sub- section

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

50C for computation of capital gain, but in the present case the stamps authority valuation is relevant not only for computation of capital gain u/s 48 but also for working out exemption u/s 54F.Since we are concerned with the revision-order in entirety which has two issues based on the stamps authority valuation, first one is the computation of capital

SHRI RAMESH MANGAL,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Pan : Abwpm2673E

Capital Gain at Rs. 13,21,51,725/- (Market value of Plot As per Section 50C of the Act at Rs. 16,17,50,000/- less cost of acquisition of Rs. 2,95,98,275/-) was made to the income declared by the assessee. Ld. A.O also did not give credit to the tax paid by the assessee

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1,37,23,750/-, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 148A of the Act. In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee filed a return of income on 26.04.2022 declaring the same income and capital loss as declared in the original return. During the reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanations furnished