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 of Rs. 2,03,51,964/-. The facts regarding the sale of agricultural land and purchase of new agricultural land by the assessee are not in dispute but the claim of the assessee was denied by the AO in respect of the agricultural land purchased by the assessee in the name of family members being wife, daughters

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; therefore, the same cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. A specific material against 22 the assessee should have been brought on record to put assessee under liability. However, in the present case, the entire documentary evidence on record has not been disputed by the authorities below and there is no rebuttal to the explanation of assessee

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; therefore, the same cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. A specific material against 22 the assessee should have been brought on record to put assessee under liability. However, in the present case, the entire documentary evidence on record has not been disputed by the authorities below and there is no rebuttal to the explanation of assessee

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; therefore, the same cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. A specific material against 22 the assessee should have been brought on record to put assessee under liability. However, in the present case, the entire documentary evidence on record has not been disputed by the authorities below and there is no rebuttal to the explanation of assessee

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; therefore, the same cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. A specific material against 22 the assessee should have been brought on record to put assessee under liability. However, in the present case, the entire documentary evidence on record has not been disputed by the authorities below and there is no rebuttal to the explanation of 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; therefore, the same cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. A specific material against 22 the assessee should have been brought on record to put assessee under liability. However, in the present case, the entire documentary evidence on record has not been disputed by the authorities below and there is no rebuttal to the explanation of assessee

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

gain 44,81,373 5 Addition of amounts paid by WCS 35,50,000 6 Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed income 8,42,92,165 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances made by AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal on various grounds assailing the relief

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 68,69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same has not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order the Assessing officer that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 68,69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same has not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order the Assessing officer that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 68,69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same has not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order the Assessing officer that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

capital gain earned on sale of shares was Rs.24,39,177/- only i.e. much less than Rs. 50 lacs. Hence the proceedings initiated u/s 148 of the Act were barred by time. The AO disposed off the objection relying upon CBDT instruction no.1 dated 11.05.2022. Kind attention is invited to recent judgment in the case of SitaramGautam vs. DCIT

SMT. APARNA JHAWAR,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain. However, nothing has been brought on record by Revenue to show that the persons investigated, including entry operators or stock brokers, have named the appellant was in collusion with them. No finding specifically against the appellant has been made in the Investigation team report as appearing on record and this cannot be any ground for holding the appellant

AJAY KUMAR BALMUKUND JHAWAR HUF,SENDHWA vs. ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain. However, nothing has been brought on record by Revenue to show that the persons investigated, including entry operators or stock brokers, have named the appellant was in collusion with them. No finding specifically against the appellant has been made in the Investigation team report as appearing on record and this cannot be any ground for holding the appellant

M/S. BALMUKUND DHANRAJ JHAWAR HUF,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain. However, nothing has been brought on record by Revenue to show that the persons investigated, including entry operators or stock brokers, have named the appellant was in collusion with them. No finding specifically against the appellant has been made in the Investigation team report as appearing on record and this cannot be any ground for holding the appellant

ROHIT KUMAR YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(5), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

capital gain is offered to tax by the mother of the assessee. Thus, it is clear from the assessment order that at the time of making protective addition there was no addition made by the AO on substantive basis in the hands of the mother of the assessee. Ld. DR has not disputed the fact that only a protective addition

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

capital gain in terms with sub-section (3) of section 50C. Therefore, sub- section (1) to section 50C cannot be considered in isolation. By making an adjustment of the nature contemplated under sub-section (1) to section 50C, that too, by CPC, the Department takes away a valuable statutory right given to the assessee to object to the value determined

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

capital gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective assessment has to be done only after substantive assessment is done

THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR SHAMBHUDAYAL AGRAWAL, INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2011-12 Acit 5(1) Shri Raj Kumar Indore Shambhudayal Agrawal बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Adcpa0468M Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By S/Shri C.P. Rawka & Veenus Rawka, Cas Date Of Hearing: 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iii, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Indore Dated 25.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 27.02.2014 Framed By Dcit-5(1) Indore.

Section 147 in the case of Smt. Vimla Agrawal, one of the co-owners and examined the investment made by her. On going through the details of the property, it is clear that the property has been purchased by the appellant in co-ownership with two other family members namely Smt. Vimla Bai Agrawal and Shri Shambhudayal Agrawal. These