ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

capital gain under Section 54F of the Act. It was, rejected by the ITO as also by the Tribunal. This Court observed that substantial investment was made in construction of the house. In view of the requirement of Section 54F of the Act, the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified. We are fortified

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

capital gain and deduction as claimed under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer after due application of mind after reducing the selling expenses, accepted the contention of the appellant. 2.4] The reason for issuance of the notice under section 263 of the Act and its reply by the appellant is as under:- S.No Reason for issuance

SMT SHILPA DESAI ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Desai, Indore Pan – Abzpd 4926 A … Appellant Vs. Pcit-I, Indore … Respondent

Capital Gain of Rs. 3,57,50,372/- and allowing deduction as claimed by the assessee u/s 54F/54EC of Rs. 3,82,58,792/-. Subsequently, a notice under section

M/S. CHARITRA GOLD PVT. LTD.,RATLAM vs. THE PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain. Therefore the assessment order of Ld. A.O dated 22.12.2016 cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus quash the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act as the action of Ld. PCIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by the binding precedence and restore the assessment order

SHRI MANOJ MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain. Therefore the assessment order of Ld. A.O dated 22.12.2016 cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus quash the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act as the action of Ld. PCIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by the binding precedence and restore the assessment order

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain. Therefore the assessment order of Ld. A.O dated 22.12.2016 cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus quash the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act as the action of Ld. PCIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by the binding precedence and restore the assessment order

SHRI ADITYA MUNDRA,DEWAS vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain. Therefore the assessment order of Ld. A.O dated 22.12.2016 cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus quash the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act as the action of Ld. PCIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by the binding precedence and restore the assessment order

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain. Therefore the assessment order of Ld. A.O dated 22.12.2016 cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus quash the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act as the action of Ld. PCIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by the binding precedence and restore the assessment order

SHRI MANISH MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Capital Gain. Therefore the assessment order of Ld. A.O dated 22.12.2016 cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We thus quash the impugned orders u/s 263 of the Act as the action of Ld. PCIT is contrary to the ratio laid down by the binding precedence and restore the assessment order

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

57,000/- was deposited in the capital gain account within Page 3 of 10 Keshav Kanungo, Bhopal ITA No. 263/Ind/2023 – AY 2015-16 the prescribed time limit but he could invest only Rs. 49,18,500/- in purchase of new flat hence, he offered Rs. 26,48,811/- in A.Y. 2018-19 as per the proviso to section

PARMANAND SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO 5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

57,130/- from salary and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long- term capital gain of Rs. 69,78,526/- earned from sale of equity shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. exempted u/s 10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased 15,000 shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. for Rs. 45,000/-; sold the same

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

section 50C. The AO has accepted the capital gain declared by assessee and thus committed an error while completing assessment. 4. Accordingly, Ld. PCIT issued a show-cause notice dated 04.09.2019 by which the assessee was asked to explain as to why the assessment-order may not be revised. In response thereto, the assessee filed submission which is re-produced

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

57 of the paper book as well as the bank account statement of the assessee at page no.58 of the paper book and submitted that the purchase consideration was paid through banking channels vide cheque no.767734 reflected in the bank account statement of the assessee. Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee made the payment of purchase consideration

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

57 of the paper book as well as the bank account statement of the assessee at page no.58 of the paper book and submitted that the purchase consideration was paid through banking channels vide cheque no.767734 reflected in the bank account statement of the assessee. Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee made the payment of purchase consideration

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

57 of the paper book as well as the bank account statement of the assessee at page no.58 of the paper book and submitted that the purchase consideration was paid through banking channels vide cheque no.767734 reflected in the bank account statement of the assessee. Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee made the payment of purchase consideration

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012- 13 respectively. 2. ITA No. 199/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken as the lead case. The disallowance of claim of long term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to Rs. 77,57

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012- 13 respectively. 2. ITA No. 199/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken as the lead case. The disallowance of claim of long term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to Rs. 77,57

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012- 13 respectively. 2. ITA No. 199/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 is taken as the lead case. The disallowance of claim of long term capital gain on sale of listed shares amounting to Rs. 77,57