VISHAL GIFT CENTRE - LLP,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gains until the diversion date are exempt. For gains after diversion, fair market value on the diversion date will be the cost of acquisition. The appeal was allowed in part.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "139", "143(3)", "142(1)", "143(2)", "2(14)(iii)", "54B

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

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

1) Any profits or 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

54B as provided in section 45(1) as Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset

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

Appeal is allowed

capital gain was not taxable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["147", "148", "143(3)", "54B", "2(14)(iii)(b)", "133(6)", "271(1

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

1) dated 03.12.2019 placed at page no.29 to 38 of the paper book and submitted that in para 1.8 to 1.8.3. the assessee has given computation of fair market value as on 01.04.1981 as well as capital gain. The assessee given the calculation of fair market value based on the reverse indexation method. The assessing Officer after considering relevant facts

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

1,07,93,900/- was made resulting into a tax demand of Rs. 39,86,910/-. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in determining the Long Term Capital Gain from sale of urban agricultural land in A.Y. 2012-13 without appreciating the fact that the Long Term Capital Gain had accrued to the assessee

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1. That the order of AO is bad in law & wrong on facts. 2.(a) That the AO has erred in determining the long term capital gain from sale of urban agricultural land in the A.Y. 2012-13 without appreciating the fact that the long term capital gain had accrued to the assessee in the Asst. Year

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

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

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

1) of the of the I.T. Act 1961 which is reproduced here for reference and kind perusal accordingly: "any profit or gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset in the previous year shall save as otherwise provided in the section 54, 54B

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

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

1) of the of the I.T. Act 1961 which is reproduced here for reference and kind perusal accordingly: "any profit or gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset in the previous year shall save as otherwise provided in the section 54, 54B

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

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 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

capital gain fixed deposit as well as purchased agricultural land at Village- Narwar, Indore Road, Ujjain and Village Ramvasa, Indore Road, Ujjain. The reason for issuance of notice under Section 148 was AIR information pertaining to the Ravi Prakash Langer vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2011-12 - 3 – said transaction. The assessee claimed deduction amounting to Rs. 1

NAYANA JAYESH PATEL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain from sale of immovable property as under:\nFull value of consideration\nRs. 1,60,00,000/-\nValue of property at per section 50C as on date\nof Registered Sale:\nFor 1st Property\nFor 2nd property\nLess: Cost of acquisition\nBalance\nLess: Deduction u/s 54B

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

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 in Capital Gain Deposit Scheme by the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1

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