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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital asset as\nreduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with\nsuch transfer\". Therefore, bare meaning of Net Consideration differs from 50C\nwhich specifically replace stamp duty value for the purpose of section 48 only.\nJai Prakash Narayan Sharma\nITA No. 807/Ind/2024 – AY 2016-17\nThe provision of section 50C creates limited fiction to the section

PRAGYA SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Pragya Saxena Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Awfps 9685 L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

section 50C of IT Act, the full value of sale consideration was taken of Rs. 42,00,000/- instead of Rs. 58,66,100/- (as valued adopted by Valuation Authority). Therefore the taxable LTCG will be computed as follows:- Full value of consideration 58,66,100 Less: Expenses on transfer Nil Net consideration 58,66,100 Less: Indexed cost

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

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

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain consideration in Income Tax Return is less than sale of property reported in 26QB/AIR or sales consideration with documentary evidences. He was further directed to explain and justify in respect of large deduction claimed under Section 54 of the Act with documentary evidence. Complete details of expenses relating to transfer of property and cost of improvement with documentary

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gain consideration in Income Tax Return is less than sale of property reported in 26QB/AIR or sales consideration with documentary evidences. He was further directed to explain and justify in respect of large deduction claimed under Section 54 of the Act with documentary evidence. Complete details of expenses relating to transfer of property and cost of improvement with documentary

SEEMA JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

58,003/-which the assessee has already disclosed as long term capital gain. On the analysis of the provisions of section

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

58,300/-\nBusiness income....\nRs.6,42,021/-\nIncome from other sources...\nRs.56.265/-\nRs.8,56,586/\nAdd: Long term capital gain\nas per para 6 above\nRs.21.68.388/-\nGROSS TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME\nRs.30,24,974/-\nLong term capital gain of Rs.21,68,388/- to be taxed separately\n2.12 That the aforesaid assessment order of Ld. A.O bears\nNo.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2020-21/1031627237(1) and is dated

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gain under section 10(38) of the Act can be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. These submissions and case laws referred to by the assessee are reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order. The ld.CIT(A) after considering detailed submissions of the assessee and case laws cited

RAJESH BIRTHARE ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(4) , INDORE, INDORE

58,000/-.\nAlso for the second parcel of Agriculture land (KH. NO. 165/1/2, TALAWALI CHANDA,\nINDORE(2.965 Hec) sold by the Appellant, the appellant case was re-opened by ITO\n3(4), Indore under section 147 and notice under section 148 was issued on 26.03.2019\nby ITO 3(4), Indore for determining capital gains

RAJESH BIRTHARE,INDORE vs. ITO 3(2), INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

58,000/-.\nAlso for the second parcel of Agriculture land (KH. NO. 165/1/2, TALAWALI CHANDA,\nINDORE(2.965 Hec) sold by the Appellant, the appellant case was re-opened by ITO\n3(4), Indore under section 147 and notice under section 148 was issued on 26.03.2019\nby ITO 3(4), Indore for determining capital gains

M/S B S S ENTERPRISES,BHOPAL vs. ITO-4(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. B.S.S. Enterprises, Ito, 4B, Civil Lines, 4(1), बनाम/ Professor Colony, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aajfb6320 P Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, C.A. & Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.10.2023

58-66 of the paper book. It is further mentioned in the registered-deed that the consideration was received through cheque drawn on Canara Bank. The assessee has received actual sale consideration of Rs. 19,00,000/- only although the stamp authority valuation might be Rs. 49,90,000/-. Ld. AR submitted that the AO has merely substituted the ‘actual

M/S PARTH DEVELOPERS,DHAR vs. THE PCIT -1, INDORER

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Parth Developers Pr. Cit-1 Manawar Dist. Indore Vs. Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aalfp 4509 N Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2023

capital gains". 43. From the perusal of above section it is crystal clear that before the insertion of this section there was no legal obligation on the part of the assessee to follow percentage completion method only. Before insertion of this section person engaged in construction and service contracts were free to follow either the project completion/Completed project method

SHRI SANJAY DUBEY,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 143(3) the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That the Ld. Lower authority has erred in holding the view that appellant is liable for capital gain tax on forcefully transfer of immovable property by the bank against the liability of third party which is upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary erroneous and unjustified. Page

SHRI SANJAY DUBEY,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 143(3) the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That the Ld. Lower authority has erred in holding the view that appellant is liable for capital gain tax on forcefully transfer of immovable property by the bank against the liability of third party which is upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary erroneous and unjustified. Page