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 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of capital gain accruing to the assessee till the diversion of agricultural land on 25.11.2010 shall not be eligible to tax. Further, for the purpose of computation of the amount of capital gain that shall be exempt from tax, the assessee submitted that fair market value on the date

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 54F(4) of the Act. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) observed that the assessee has not deposited the net sale consideration in Capital Gain Scheme Account during the intermittent period of construction of residential house and he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved by the assessee filed an appeal before

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

gains for which section 45 is the charging section. Section 47 deals with Transaction not regarded as transfer and states that nothing contained in the section 45 shall apply to transfers stated thereunder. Clause (iii)of section 47 reads as under "Transaction not regarded as transfer 47.Nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to the following transfers

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

Appeal is allowed

section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act] and therefore the resultant capital gain was taxable. Accordingly, the AO made addition\nof taxable gain at Rs.67,56

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

56,02,384/- - Jain Capital Traders (merged with SAL) Govind Long Term Turbotech 8,29,555/- 24,866/- Harinarayan Capital Agrawal (HUF) Manish Long Term Turbotech 9,39,230/- 28,176/- Govind Capital Agrawal HUF Darshan Bogus Vas Infra- 7,43,099/- - Kumar Loss structure Pahwa 5. The impugned additions made by the Ld. A.O are on a common reasoning

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

56,02,384/- - Jain Capital Traders (merged with SAL) Govind Long Term Turbotech 8,29,555/- 24,866/- Harinarayan Capital Agrawal (HUF) Manish Long Term Turbotech 9,39,230/- 28,176/- Govind Capital Agrawal HUF Darshan Bogus Vas Infra- 7,43,099/- - Kumar Loss structure Pahwa 5. The impugned additions made by the Ld. A.O are on a common reasoning

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

56,02,384/- - Jain Capital Traders (merged with SAL) Govind Long Term Turbotech 8,29,555/- 24,866/- Harinarayan Capital Agrawal (HUF) Manish Long Term Turbotech 9,39,230/- 28,176/- Govind Capital Agrawal HUF Darshan Bogus Vas Infra- 7,43,099/- - Kumar Loss structure Pahwa 5. The impugned additions made by the Ld. A.O are on a common reasoning

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

56,02,384/- - Jain Capital Traders (merged with SAL) Govind Long Term Turbotech 8,29,555/- 24,866/- Harinarayan Capital Agrawal (HUF) Manish Long Term Turbotech 9,39,230/- 28,176/- Govind Capital Agrawal HUF Darshan Bogus Vas Infra- 7,43,099/- - Kumar Loss structure Pahwa 5. The impugned additions made by the Ld. A.O are on a common reasoning

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

56,02,384/- - Jain Capital Traders (merged with SAL) Govind Long Term Turbotech 8,29,555/- 24,866/- Harinarayan Capital Agrawal (HUF) Manish Long Term Turbotech 9,39,230/- 28,176/- Govind Capital Agrawal HUF Darshan Bogus Vas Infra- 7,43,099/- - Kumar Loss structure Pahwa 5. The impugned additions made by the Ld. A.O are on a common reasoning

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

56,02,384/- - Jain Capital Traders (merged with SAL) Govind Long Term Turbotech 8,29,555/- 24,866/- Harinarayan Capital Agrawal (HUF) Manish Long Term Turbotech 9,39,230/- 28,176/- Govind Capital Agrawal HUF Darshan Bogus Vas Infra- 7,43,099/- - Kumar Loss structure Pahwa 5. The impugned additions made by the Ld. A.O are on a common reasoning

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

gains too. I think, the\nIncome-tax Officer also has a share of the burden of the onus, as the\ncase may be, to show as to under what head this income would fall\nand that the discharge of the burden or onus must be on acceptable\nmaterial and strong probabilities. I am, therefore, of the opinion that,\nin this

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

56 (Calcutta) 2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

56 (Calcutta) 2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

56 (Calcutta) 2. Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs. ITO 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata-Trib) 3. Suman Poddar vs. ITO 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 4. Sandeep Bhargava vs. ACIT 109 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi –Trib) 5.Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO 177 ITD 127 (Delhi –Trib) 8. He has submitted that in the above decisions when the investment was made in the Penny stock companies

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gains claimed by the assessee. The copy of the said ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani] Asst.Year.– 2016-17 - 8 - notice dated 04.06.2018 issued by the ITO under Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith annexure, appearing at Page Nos. 56

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gains claimed by the assessee. The copy of the said ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani] Asst.Year.– 2016-17 - 8 - notice dated 04.06.2018 issued by the ITO under Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith annexure, appearing at Page Nos. 56

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

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

gains arising on sale of land, which the assessee has claimed to\nbe sale of rural agricultural lands and the same being not covered by the definition\nof \" capital asset\", as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act 61, the\naddition is disputed by the assessee, being wrongly made on the basis of incorrect\nassumption of facts

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