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

71,442 Transaction charges 46,159 Stamp charges 815 Turnover charges 970 Total 5,27,267 ii. The said expenses Rs. 5,27,267/- claimed against short-term capital gain on sale of shares. During the year under appeal short term sale proceeds of shares Rs. 12,41,10,593/- and long term sale proceeds of shares

SADHU RAM BALANI,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

Gain etc. It is pertinent to note that even as per the SEBI order there is no allegation against any individual shares holders who have Page 15 of 51 ITANo.470/Ind/2023 Sadhuram Balani purchased and sold the shares during this period from October 2012 to September 2015 but the entire investigation and finding are directed against some of the brokers

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

gain and various deductions claimed under the provisions of law and took one of the view permissible under the law and assessed the income after making certain disallowance. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83, has laid down the following ratio: "A bare reading of section 263 of the Income

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

71,256 and purchased a house at Delhi. The exemption was claimed from the charge of tax on capital gain under Section

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

Capital Gain. 9. Then, Ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata in PCIT Vs. Swati Bajaj, ITA No. 06/2022, dated 14.06.2022 decided recently in favour of Revenue. The decision is much detailed; has considered various legal precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other Page 20 of 26 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment

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

Capital Gain. 9. Then, Ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata in PCIT Vs. Swati Bajaj, ITA No. 06/2022, dated 14.06.2022 decided recently in favour of Revenue. The decision is much detailed; has considered various legal precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other Courts; has taken into account the Investigation-Report

SMT SHILPA DESAI ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Desai, Indore Pan – Abzpd 4926 A … Appellant Vs. Pcit-I, Indore … Respondent

section 54EC/54F was very well examined by the Assessing officer and after application of his mind the claim has been allowed by him. It is not a case of no enquiry rather it is a case of complete enquiry by the Ld. Assessing officer who after calling all the necessary documents examined the transaction of Long Term Capital Gain

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

Capital Gain made by the respective assessee(s) deserves to be allowed as they have entered into the transactions of purchase and sales duly supported by the documents which have not found to be incorrect. The conditions provided u/s 10(38) of the Act have been fulfilled by the assessee(s) namely Shivnarayan Sharma, Sapan Shaw, Prayank Jain, Govind Harinarayan

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

section 2(14) of the Act and holding that no specific ground has been filed on addition made towards long term capital gain. 04. not giving any finding on ground no. 06 before him relating to addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of household expenditure. 2. Ground no. 1 to 3 relates to denying

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

71,856 proprietor of M/s Samarth Impex, Indore) 3 Income from Long Term Capital 27,50,406 Gain (Exempt U/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act 4 Interest on saving Bank Interest 8,715 5 Dividend Income 3,830 3.1] Details of all bank accounts as maintained by the assessee in the year under consideration is as under:- S.No

SHRI KAILASH BHAGWAN CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(3), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

71,935/-. Thus total taxable long term capital gain as per the A.O. is Rs.71,39,679/-. Against this, the assessee has preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering submissions partly allowed the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) in respect of computation of capital gain affirmed the view of the A.O. in respect of rejection of claim

BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of the new asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub- section (1), exceeds (b) the amount that would not have been so charged had the amount actually utilised

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

71,200 Amount deposited in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme u/s 54 .. Rs. 25,00,000 2. Building 15/01/2015: Value u/s 50C 40,30,000 Sales consideration received 40,30,000 Sales Consideration 40,30,000 Less: Transfer Expenses 0 40,30,000 Less: Indexed Cost Building 12,28,800 (F.Y. 1981-82 120000/100*1024) ___________ 28,01,200 Deduction

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

71,18,094/- on two counts, viz. (i) Ld. AO treated the capital gain of Rs. 69,78,526/- as bogus receipt u/s 68 of the Act, and also (ii) Ld. AO added a sum of Rs. 1,39,568/- on account of estimated brokerage-cost incurred by assessee out of undisclosed sources for arranging bogus capital gain. Aggrieved

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

section 71 permits assessee to set off loss other than of capital gains against income from other head. It was further

SHRI SALEEM PARVEZ,BHOPAL vs. PCIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Saleem Parvez Pcit-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ P.A.No. Acyps8006L Vs. Appellant (Assessee) Respondent (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22 / 02 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09 /03/ 2022 आदेश / O R D E R

71,32,716/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain. Subsequently the return was revised on 17.08.2016 declaring income of Rs. 3,73,33,850/- from Long Term Capital Gain. After perusal of revised calculation of Long Term Capital Gain, copies of sale and purchase deeds and bank account, revised return of income filed by the assessee is accepted

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 54 of the Income-tax Act. In the present case, in fact, the capital gain is Rs. 51,980 ; whereas the first 7 Shivcharan Singh instalment towards the flat from the Delhi Development Authority was Rs. 71

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

71,289/- in the year under consideration the Page 11 of 21 Bhawani Shankar Page 12 of 21 assessee has shown the consideration of Rs.2 crore and claimed that the same was invested in agricultural land which is more than the capital gain arising from the said consideration. The Assessing officer has recalculated capital gain after discussing the relevant facts