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

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

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

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

SHRI VRINDAVAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2) was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Upon verification of the computation of income and return of income filed by the assessee, it was found that the assessee claimed exempt long-term capital gain on purchase/sale of shares at Rs. 26,72

SHRI GOPAL TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2) was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Upon verification of the computation of income and return of income filed by the assessee, it was found that the assessee claimed exempt long-term capital gain on purchase/sale of shares at Rs. 26,72

SHRI GAURAV TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2) was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Upon verification of the computation of income and return of income filed by the assessee, it was found that the assessee claimed exempt long-term capital gain on purchase/sale of shares at Rs. 26,72

GOVARDHAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2) was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Upon verification of the computation of income and return of income filed by the assessee, it was found that the assessee claimed exempt long-term capital gain on purchase/sale of shares at Rs. 26,72

ROHIT KUMAR YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(5), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

72,860/-. During the scrutiny assessment the AO noted that as per the AIR information the assessee sold immovable property valued at Rs.30 lakhs. The assessee furnished the copy of the sale deed dated 27.12.2012 and also furnished the copy of the purchase deed dated 15.11.2010. Accordantly the AO took full value consideration of the land in question

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

72,430/-. We also find that at computerized sheets inventorized as page No.22 to 23, some cost of work at Rs.1,94,12,306.50p has been stated. Further, at page No.16 and 17 cost of work has been mentioned at Rs.81,26,739.57p. At page No. 16, the sum total of these two costs have been mentioned

THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR SHAMBHUDAYAL AGRAWAL, INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2011-12 Acit 5(1) Shri Raj Kumar Indore Shambhudayal Agrawal बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Adcpa0468M Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By S/Shri C.P. Rawka & Veenus Rawka, Cas Date Of Hearing: 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iii, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Indore Dated 25.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 27.02.2014 Framed By Dcit-5(1) Indore.

72,67,543/- 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Assessee filed additional evidences. Ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report and after considering the same as well as reply/submission filed by the assessee partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. 4. Now the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising following grounds: 1.Whether

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gains by the assessee, given the fact that the assessee failed to submit the most basic details pertaining the share transactions such as quantity purchased and sold, rate of purchase and sale, frequency of transactions, etc.?” 5. The brief fact leading to the case is this that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged, in the business

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

capital gains by the assessee, given the fact that the assessee failed to submit the most basic details pertaining the share transactions such as quantity purchased and sold, rate of purchase and sale, frequency of transactions, etc.?” 5. The brief fact leading to the case is this that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged, in the business

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

72,77,82 and 87 respectively duly highlighted)\nv) When the aforesaid residential apartment at Greenage, Bangalore was sold on 26.10.2021 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,22,00,000/-. (Sale deed attached at pages 50 to 62 of Paper Book) the entire capital loss of Rs.11,80,710/- after indexation, was offered in the income tax return

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

72,450 18,724 0 Labour Supply Mishra 3.During the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) on 14/01/2020, 04/02/2020, 10/11/2020, (11/12) / 2020 (24/12) / 2020 and (19/1) / 2021 whereby the assessee was asked to furnish name, PAN, emailID, current address, etc of the sub-contractors. However, compliance on these points was not made. 4.Meanwhile, the AO also issued

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

72,10,437/- was collection received from the farmers against their loan. The assesse furnished the details/documents in this regard which is kept on record. Further the AO has also examined the further record regarding unsecured loans. The assesse has produced the relevant record of unsecured loan of Rs.3,49,31,603/- taken from Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Khandwa Page

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

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