SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/-. The Assessing Officer after seeking details from the 15 Annapurna Maheshwari & Pradeep Maheshwari ITA No.315/Ind/2012, 252/Ind/2016 & 53/Ind/2014 parties treated the sum of Rs.36,72,631/- credited in the books of accounts unexplained cash credit under section

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

72,551 C) Income from Short Term Capital Gain Treated as business income as discussed above 1,19,23,982 D) Income from other sources a) Dividend income not exempted As discussed above 2,15,542 b) Income from interests 18,19,034 c) Winning from Lotteries etc. 500 d) Minors, Total Income clubbed 9,386 20,44,462 Gross

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

SARITA BAGDI ,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD-4(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/-. The Assessing Officer after seeking details from the parties treated the sum of Rs.36,72,631/- credited in the books of accounts unexplained cash credit 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

72,000/· of a non-descript company incorporated in 2017 which gat merged in 2009. This cannot be a case of intelligent investment or a simple case of tax planning to gain benefit of long term capital gains. The issue that it deals with and the facts are however, quite interesting. The in-congruencies found out by the revenue that

THE DCIT,, RATLAM vs. SHRI ANIL JHALANI, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the cross

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

72,925/- on account of short term capital gain and Rs.2,48,108/- on account of interest and added the same to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) observed as under :- “From the above it is clear that the transfer of the property has been taken place within the meaning of section

SHRI SUNIL SHASRMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11

72,500/-. Ld. AO asked the assessee as to why not the 2 Shri Sunil sharma provisions of capital gain should be attracted on the sale of property to which the assessee replied that the alleged transactions is in the nature of gift and the same is not treated as transfer for the purpose of computing capital gain as provided

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

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

72,80,964/- claimed U/S 54B in respect of Agricultural lands purchased in the name of his minor children also out of sale proceeds of original asset. 3.That the respondent ought to have considered the intent and spirit of Section 54B which simply casts an obligation upon the assessee to buy agricultural land for claiming the said deduction without specifying

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

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

section 50C. The AO has accepted the capital gain declared by assessee and thus committed an error while completing assessment. 4. Accordingly, Ld. PCIT issued a show-cause notice dated 04.09.2019 by which the assessee was asked to explain as to why the assessment-order may not be revised. In response thereto, the assessee filed submission which is re-produced

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

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

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments _ Assessment year 1998-99 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer found that assessee had purchased certain shares of a company 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 a broker at Rs. 55 per share

SHRI DINESH NIGAM,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (3), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

gain at Rs.41,13,018/- against the income disclosed by the assessee in the return of income at Rs.1,97,440/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who after considering submissions partly allowed the appeal, thereby the claim of improvement of asset was allowed. Hence, the addition of Rs.91,280/- was allowed

SHRI OM PRAKASH PHATANDAS PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

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

capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/-. The Assessing Officer after seeking details from the parties treated the sum of Rs.36,72,631/- credited in the books of accounts unexplained cash credit under section

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Section 132 in consequence of information in his possession regarding\nthis transfer of property. If it was not so and if there was material information\nwhich could lead to any other inference, it was on the Revenue to produce\nsuch evidence. In the absence of such evidence, it was submitted that the\nincome should be assessed as capital gains arising