THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. DR. SHRI RAJEEV CHAUDHARY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Pan : Abkpc5729K Assistant Commissioner Of V/S Dr.Rajeev Choudhary Income Tax, 1, Shiv Vilas Palace Circle-2(1), Indore Indore

3), Mumbai Vs. Shri Sachin R. Tendulkar, ITA No. 3217/Mum/2014 for the A.Y. 2010-11 and ITA No. 1411!Mum/2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 dated 25.01.2017 in favour of the assessee. In the result, appeal is filed by the Revenue are dismissed regarding income from capital gains. The copy of the same is on page

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 69 of the Income-Tax Act,1961-Unexplained investments. AY.1998-99. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officers found that assessee had purchased certain shares of a company Page 16 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2015-16 at rate between Rs. 2.50 and Rs. 3.40 per share in month of April, 1997 and part of those shares were sold through

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

3(% - commission of the total entry amount. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.1,99,847/- is Confirmed. Therefore, the appeal on this ground is Dismissed.” 8. Before us, Ld. DR made a crystal-clear and pointed submission. He submitted that the assessee has declared exempted capital-gain from shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd., which

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

section 40A(3) of the I. T. Act.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. Brief facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee- individual submitted his return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 17,29,650/- which was subjected to scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2). Finally

SHRI SURESH AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO -5(3), INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

70,411/- and consider the capital gain at Rs.8,07,484/- after allowing index cost of Rs.62,927/-in the case of the assessee. In view of these facts, we find that the assessee has earned long term capital gains from these two transfers of agricultural land at Rs.37,26,862/- as against the which the assessee has made investment

SHRI ABHISHEK GUPTA,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

3 of 27 Shri Abhishek Gupta Assessment year 2014-15 6. Before proceeding further, we may note down the undisputed facts of the impugned transactions of capital gain, as culled out from the assessment-order, the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the material held in the Paper- Books submitted by parties so that the issues can be better understood

SMT. MANISHA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

70,496/- to the total income of the appellant on account of long term capital gain as earned on sale of long term capital gain as earned on sale of shares by treating it as income from undisclosed sources without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him more so when the appellant had filed ample

SHRI HAKIMUDDIN KHAMBATI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4) RANGE-4, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

70,496/- to the total income of the appellant on account of long term capital gain as earned on sale of long term capital gain as earned on sale of shares by treating it as income from undisclosed sources without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him more so when the appellant had filed ample

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

capital 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

capital 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

capital 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 ITO-2(2), INDORE vs. SMT. MOHAN BAI POKHRANA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.468/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10

3,22,650/- long-term capital gain was computed at Rs. 69,85,350/-. The assessee has claimed exemption of Rs.50 Lacs under section 54EC of the Act on account of investment in REC Bonds, Rs. 15,49,883/- under section 54F and balance long-term capital gain of Rs. 4,35,467/- has been offered for tax vide revised

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

3/- per share for a total consideration of Rs. 45,000/- on 22.11.2011 through M/s Arihant Capital Marketing Limited. The purchase consideration is stated to have been paid in cash. The shares were subsequently claimed to have been sold on different dates from 17.04.2013 to 08.05.2013 for a sum of Rs. 70,23,526/-, resulting into a exempted capital gain

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

70,000/-, which is beyond the\nbelieve that a person having withdrawal almost 10 to 12 months\nprior to the purchase was searching the right property with the bare\ncash kept in his pocket. However, from the available facts, it is\nevident that the purchaser has not sufficient fund to buy the\nproperty at much higher rate.\n2.7 With view

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

capital gains sustained by the first\nappellate authority on incorrect assumption of facts may please be deleted.\n11.\nRegarding ground numbers 4 and 5, which relates to the addition of Rs.20\nlakhs u/s 68 of the Act 61, the Ld. AR submitted that the cash deposit of\nRs.21,70,000/- made by the assessee in her bank account

SMT. MAMTA SINGH,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Smt. Mamta Singh Vs Acit-3(1) Ef-14, Scheme No.54, Indore Vijay Nagar, Indore

70,14,902/- made by AO in respect of sale of lands at county walk (village Jhalaria) effected by appellant through M/s Aarone Developers Pvt. Ltd , by treating the Capital Gains offered by appellant as income from Business . He failed to see that since the lands in question were Mamta Singh held by appellant as investment since inception , mere sale