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 54B which is applicable where the capital gains arise from the transfer of capital asset and was being used

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in\nthe previous year shall, save as\notherwise provided in sections\n54, 54B

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

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Section 54B on the sale of agricultural land, treating the gain as exempt. The AO reopened the assessment on finding that the lands were not used for agricultural purposes for two years prior to the transfer, thus not fulfilling the conditions for exemption. The AO treated the gains as capital

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

54B to 54GA’ and the AO issued statutory notices u/s 143(2)/142(1). During assessment-proceeding, the AO found that the assessee declared a taxable long-term capital gain on sale of an agricultural land made on 13.03.2015 at Rs. Nil after claiming exemption of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s 54EC on account of investment in bonds

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 accrued to the assessee in the A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee offered the same in his return of income and claimed exemption under Section 54F & 54B

SHRI HUKUMCHAND CHOUDHARY ,INDORE vs. ITO (3),INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Capital Gain accrued to the assessee in the A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee offered the same in his return of income and claimed exemption under Section 54F & 54B

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

capital gain in one year only more so when the amount was actually received by the appellant in five years. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld Assessing officer erred in not allowing proper deduction under section 548 and 54F of the Act on the basis of investment as made

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

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

section 54B. Ld. DR submitted that the AO has perfectly dealt with both of these aspects and thereafter taxed the 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 54B. Ld. DR submitted that the AO has perfectly dealt with both of these aspects and thereafter taxed the capital-gain

SHRI LEELAHAR PALASIYAWALA,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(4), INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Leeladhar Palasiyawala, Pr.Cit-1, Village Kalariya, Post Indore बनाम/ Kalariya, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bqdppo511K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

54B. (1) Subject to provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital

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

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

54B of the Act 1961 and after allowing the said deduction,\nshort term capital gains has been determined by the AO at Rs.39,83,693/-.\nThe claim of the assessee on this issue is that since it is a sale of rural agricultural\nland, the said land sold, does not fall under the definition of capital asset and as\nsuch

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE vs. RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Ito-1(2), Rajendra Singh Yadav, Indore 112/12, Nanda Nagar, बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Talkies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Amkpy2261P Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2024

section 54B which is not disputed by AO. However, the sole reason of denial of exemption u/s 54B as assigned by AO in assessment-order is such that assessee did not follow the procedure of depositing capital gain

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

section 54B of the Act 4.The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him” 3. For the purpose of recording the facts the appeal in ITANo.262/Ind/2024 is taken as lead case. The assesse is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2016 declaring total

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

section 54B of the Act 4.The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by him” 3. For the purpose of recording the facts the appeal in ITANo.262/Ind/2024 is taken as lead case. The assesse is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2016 declaring total

SHRI RAVI PRAKASH LANGER PROP M/S LANGER AUTO SALES & SEVICES, UJJAIN,UJJAIN vs. ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 54B where the capital gain arises from the transfer of capital asset being land which is in the two years

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)

capital gain’ and since the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in provisions of s.54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F to the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com 173, as also relied upon

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)

capital gain’ and since the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in provisions of s.54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F to the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com 173, as also relied upon