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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section\n2(14)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the amount of capital gain accruing to\nthe assessee till the diversion of agricultural land on 25-11-2010 shall\nnot be eligible to tax. Further, for the purpose of computation of the\namount of capital gain that shall be exempt from tax, the assessee\nsubmitted that fair market value

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

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

section 10(38) the only requirement for claiming exemption is that the transaction of sale undertaken and subjected to STT in respect of the shares of a company listed in the recognized stock exchange and holding period is more than 1 year. In the case in hand the AO has not disputed the date of acquisition of the share

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

section 10(38) the only requirement for claiming exemption is that the transaction of sale undertaken and subjected to STT in respect of the shares of a company listed in the recognized stock exchange and holding period is more than 1 year. In the case in hand the AO has not disputed the date of acquisition of the share

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

section 10(38) the only requirement for claiming exemption is that the transaction of sale undertaken and subjected to STT in respect of the shares of a company listed in the recognized stock exchange and holding period is more than 1 year. In the case in hand the AO has not disputed the date of acquisition of the share

SMT. SARLA JAIN,KHANDWA vs. ITO WARD 1 KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sarla Jain, Ito, C/O Nakoda Marketing, Ward-1, बनाम/ Bhavani Mata Road, Khandwa Khandwa Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpj1316J Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

64,024 12,019/- Pharma 8,46,732 KAPPAC 250 20.05.2014 602.27 1,50,698 3,005/- Pharma KAPPAC 450 09.06.2014 338.76 1,52,442 5,408/- Pharma Page 2 of 24 Smt.Sarla Jain, Khadwa,vs.ITO,Ward 1, Khanndwa A. Y. : 2015-16 5. Now, the assessee has raised following grounds: “1. The assessment is null and void as assessment

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 gains’ and not under the head ‘income from other sources’. The ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Pune in the case of Malpani Estates vs. ACIT reported in 64 SOT 105 (Pune) wherein it is held that the character of income does not change because of the search

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 gains’ and not under the head ‘income from other sources’. The ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Pune in the case of Malpani Estates vs. ACIT reported in 64 SOT 105 (Pune) wherein it is held that the character of income does not change because of the search

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)

capital gains’ and not under the head ‘income from other sources’. The ld. CIT(A) also placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Pune in the case of Malpani Estates vs. ACIT reported in 64 SOT 105 (Pune) wherein it is held that the character of income does not change because of the search

SHRI VRINDAVAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. in the identical situation were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 10. The Ld. AR relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT

GOVARDHAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. in the identical situation were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 10. The Ld. AR relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT

SHRI GOPAL TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. in the identical situation were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 10. The Ld. AR relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT

SHRI GAURAV TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. in the identical situation were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 10. The Ld. AR relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gains.” 4. The assessee before us, filed her return of income on 21.12.2016 declaring total income at Rs.5,08,390/-. Upon selection of the case for limited scrutiny through CASS, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani] Asst.Year.– 2016-17 - 3 - issued on 19.09.2017, which was duly served upon

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gains.” 4. The assessee before us, filed her return of income on 21.12.2016 declaring total income at Rs.5,08,390/-. Upon selection of the case for limited scrutiny through CASS, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani] Asst.Year.– 2016-17 - 3 - issued on 19.09.2017, which was duly served upon

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

capital gain, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54B of Rs. 3,09,64,475/- on the strength of investment in another agricultural land situated at Gram Bijukhedi, Indore purchased for Rs. 3,11,00,000/- on 26.08.2016. When the AO asked assessee to explain the exemption claimed, the assessee submitted details of purchase of aforesaid new agricultural land for which

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain and 100% rental income from impugned property.\n69-71\nReturn of AY 2018-19 in which the assessee declared 100% rental income of Rs.3,09,000/- from impugned property.\n73-76\nReturn of AY 2019-20 in which the assessee declared 100% rental income of Rs.3,99,120/- from impugned property.\n78-81\nReturn

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 10.04.2019 for furnishing the relevant documents. On examination of the records, following discrepancies are noted. 3.1. On perusal of the submission on record, it is seen that you had submitted the computation of income in the case of assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 wherein you have