IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

69,55,000/- 5 29.03.2013 Faizan Khan (minor). 61,09,000/- S/o Imran Khan Total purchase value Rs.2,33,32,420 5.1 Thus, the assessee claimed that against the consideration as per the market value of Rs.2,55,00,000/- and long term capital gain of Rs.2,03,51,964/- the assessee has invested Rs.2,33,32,420/- for purchase

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

69,750/- as undisclosed commission income" u/s 68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita P. Patil [2015)55 taxman.com

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

69,750/- as undisclosed commission income" u/s 68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita P. Patil [2015)55 taxman.com

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

69,750/- as undisclosed commission income" u/s 68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita P. Patil [2015)55 taxman.com

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

69,750/- as undisclosed commission income" u/s 68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita P. Patil [2015)55 taxman.com

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

69,750/- as undisclosed commission income" u/s 68 of the Income tax Act is totally baseless and without any evidence. It is purely based in the Ld AO's assumption. 12. In this regard the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench passed in the matter of Smt. Smita P. Patil [2015)55 taxman.com

SHRI PREMDEEP RAJPUT,INDORE vs. THE CENTRAL CIRCLE UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Premdeep Rajput, Acit, 47-B, Sector A, Central Circle, बनाम/ Industrial Estate, Ujjain Vs. Sanwer Road, Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpr8534N Assessee By Shri Sushil Jethani & Shri V.K. Bhandari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2023

capital account and without showing the same as additional income. Therefore, the additional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account. Thus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of undisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) during search. Also, the appellant has accepted the addition made by the AO amounting

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

capital gain 44,81,373 5 Addition of amounts paid by WCS 35,50,000 6 Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed income 8,42,92,165 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances made by AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal on various grounds assailing

BRIJ MOHAN DAS DEVI PRASAD,SEHORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2 BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S.Brij Mohandas Devi Acit/Dcit, Prasad, Central Circle 2, बनाम/ House No. 62, Ward No.18, Bhopal Station Road, Vs. Sehore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadfb3526F Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ca & Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Ca, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

capital account and without showing the same as additional income. Therefore, the additional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account. Thus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of undisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) during search. Also, the appellant has accepted the addition made by the AO amounting

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. 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

RAMANLAL PIRODIA,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, AAYKAR BHAWAN

capital account\nand without showing the same as additional income. Therefore, the\nadditional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account.\nRamanlal Pirodia\nITA No.778/Ind/2025\n Assessment year 2019-20\nThus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of\nundisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4)\nduring search. Also, the appellant

ASHOK KUMAR MOONAT,RATLAM vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), INDORE, INDORE

capital account\nand without showing the same as additional income. Therefore, the\nadditional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account.\nThus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of\nundisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4)\nduring search. Also, the appellant has accepted the addition made by\nthe AO amounting

THE ACIT CENTRAL-UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S ITALIAN EDIBLES P LTD, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Italian Edibles Pvt. Ujjain Ltd. Vs. Udhyog Nagar, Palda Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aacci 2746N Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

capital account and without showing the same as Page 11 of 20 ITANo.219/Ind/2022 Italian Edible Pvt. additional income. Therefore, the additional income offered was not shown in profit and loss account. Thus, the AO was justified in making addition on account of undisclosed income declared in statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) during search. Also, the appellant has accepted

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 gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project in his original return of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers etc. in respect of the project before the Assessing Officer. We also find that

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 gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project in his original return of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers etc. in respect of the project before the Assessing Officer. We also find that

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 gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project in his original return of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers etc. in respect of the project before the Assessing Officer. We also find that