RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

capital gains” and “income from other sources”. As far as Section appearing in Section 115BBE of the Act i.e. Section Section 68, Section 69, Section 69A

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D." 10. In light of above, given the fact that the AO has invoked the provisions of section 11BBE in the instant case, the provisions of sub-section (2) to section 11BBE are equally applicable. The amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2016 whereby set off of losses against income

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

capital gain after indexation cost in accordance with law. 11. Ground no. 2 relates to making addition of Rs. 58,72,000 section 68 of the Act without verifying the facts of the case. 12. Facts apropos of this ground are that the assessee has sold another agricultural land for Rs. 2.34 crores by agreement to sale entered

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’ and since the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in provisions of s.54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F to the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com 173, as also relied upon

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’ and since the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in provisions of s.54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F to the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com 173, as also relied upon

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’ and since the assessee fulfills the conditions laid down in provisions of s.54F of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F to the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. (2012) 208/25 taxmann.com 173, as also relied upon

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

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

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.

capital gains. In the face of this material on record, it is difficult to explain that the assessment order was made without making any enquiry into the goodwill account of Rs. 10,75,000. . . ." (p. 158) [Except the fact to be pleaded separately in this particular paragraph] 12. So far as the jurisdiction of the Ld.PCIT under Section

LATE SMT. MARIAM BAI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI ABDUL RAZAK CHARA),INDORE (M.P.) vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 4(3), INDORE, INDORE (M.P.)

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Mariam Bai (Through Income Tax Officer 4(3), Legal Heir Shri Abdul Razak Indore Chara), Vs. 12, Daulaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Advpc5505A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2024 O R D E R

section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts of the case even when the said amount of cash deposit was made out of cash withdrawals from the bank account of the appellant on prior occasions only. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Capital gain as shown Add: Unexplained Cash Deposit Total assessed income u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act 1961 Rs.111387/- Rs.44018/- Rs.861000/- Rs.928369/- [Emphasis supplied] Now, we re-produce the adjudication made by CIT(A) in first-appeal: "5.1.2. The appellant's arguments have been carefully considered. While the appellant repeatedly asserts that the Assessing Officer (AO) should not rely

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

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDADEVI TAPARIA ,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTREQ, DELHI

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

gain of Rs 2,30,820/- which was declared nil by the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. However the assessee made no submission /explanation this regard, therefore the same is also added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration as income from STCG. Addition (STCG

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDA DEVI TAPARIA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

gain of Rs 2,30,820/- which was declared nil by the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. However the assessee made no submission /explanation this regard, therefore the same is also added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration as income from STCG. Addition (STCG

INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(1), BHOPAL, METRO WALK BUILDING, BITTON MARKET, BHOPAL vs. SHABANA SHEIKH, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/250/2024-25/1065398935(1) dated 05.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A), u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Page 1 of 8 Shabana Sheikh

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Capital gain is an independent and different source of income and was not the subject matter of appeal before him nor was the issue considered by the Assessing Officer by framing an assessment order. Instead the Assessing Officer termed the same as commission on the sale of land. Thus, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The Commissioner