SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

73 of the paper book vide entry dated 14th August 2012. Out of these 50000 shares held by the assessee, 31100 shares were sold by the assessee during the year under consideration for a consideration of Rs. 16,44,557/-. These shares were sold through stock exchange and from the Page 3 of 17 ITA Nos.215 & others Ind/2019 Sheela Agarwal

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

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

73 of the paper book vide entry dated 14th August 2012. Out of these 50000 shares held by the assessee, 31100 shares were sold by the assessee during the year under consideration for a consideration of Rs. 16,44,557/-. These shares were sold through stock exchange and from the Page 3 of 17 ITA Nos.215 & others Ind/2019 Sheela Agarwal

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

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

SMT. SHARDA,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

capital gain as exempt in view of the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act being beyond the distance of 2 km from the Municipal limits of Harda. Thereafter the assessment was reopened by AO vide notice u/s 148 issued on 27.03.2021 by recording the reasons for reopening as under: “REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NONDEJAS 148 OF INCOME

SHRI PREMNARAYAN,HARSUD, KHANDWA vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

capital gain as exempt in view of the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act being beyond the distance of 2 km from the Municipal limits of Harda. Thereafter the assessment was reopened by AO vide notice u/s 148 issued on 27.03.2021 by recording the reasons for reopening as under: “REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NONDEJAS 148 OF INCOME

GOVARDHAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

73,479/- which was proceeded under Section 143(1) of the Act. As per the return, the assessee derives income from Business (Ginning pressing, Khandsari udyog, and Sugar Mill), trading of shares and bank interest. 3. The same was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under Section 143(2) was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Upon verification

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

73,479/- which was proceeded under Section 143(1) of the Act. As per the return, the assessee derives income from Business (Ginning pressing, Khandsari udyog, and Sugar Mill), trading of shares and bank interest. 3. The same was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under Section 143(2) was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Upon verification

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

73,479/- which was proceeded under Section 143(1) of the Act. As per the return, the assessee derives income from Business (Ginning pressing, Khandsari udyog, and Sugar Mill), trading of shares and bank interest. 3. The same was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under Section 143(2) was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Upon verification

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

73,479/- which was proceeded under Section 143(1) of the Act. As per the return, the assessee derives income from Business (Ginning pressing, Khandsari udyog, and Sugar Mill), trading of shares and bank interest. 3. The same was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under Section 143(2) was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Upon verification

BIHARILAL,HOSHANGABAD vs. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC-DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Assessment Unit Of Income- Biharilal, Tax Department S/O Gaurishankar, 508, Ward No. 15, बनाम/ Shobhapur, Vs. Hoshangabad (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Eonpb2765E Assessee By Ms. Saniya Farhaz Memon, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

capital gain of Rs. 1,29,73,500/- ignoring the consideration shown in documents of transfer of land and in the ITR filed by the appellant in response to notice issued u/s 148. Ground5. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the assessment order without applying the provisions of Section

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

section 54, 54B, 54D, 54E (54EA, 54EB 54F, 54G, 54H) be charged to income tax under the head Capital gain and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place." 10.8 In the present case during the period under consideration, the appellant neither received the full consideration of land nor handed over

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

section 54, 54B, 54D, 54E (54EA, 54EB 54F, 54G, 54H) be charged to income tax under the head Capital gain and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place." 10.8 In the present case during the period under consideration, the appellant neither received the full consideration of land nor handed over

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

capital gain be allowed." 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the assesse has claimed only booking of the flats with builders but till date no title deed was executed. Therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted merely on the basis of the alleged booking when there is no transfer of the residential houses

NAYANA JAYESH PATEL,INDORE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain of rs. 18594875 as against computed by\nthe assessee and accepted in original assessment at rs. nil.\n5. That Id. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the provisions of first\nproviso to section 50c of the act properly and also without considering\nthe supporting documents submitted by assessee in support of\napplication of first proviso to section

SEEMA JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

73-BA, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ADTPJ4652K Assessee by Shri Anil Khandelwal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 13.07.2024 passed

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.

Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 10.04.2019 for furnishing the relevant documents. On examination of the records, following discrepancies are noted. 3.1. On perusal of the submission on record, it is seen that you had submitted the computation of income in the case of assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 wherein you have

SHRI LAV NARANG,UJJAIN vs. PCIT,, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

73,000/-, Short Term Capital Gain from sale of six plots at Rs. 1,81,455/- and income of Rs.4,79,500/- the difference in guidelines value for plots purchased. It is an admitted fact at the end of Shri Lav Nagrang assessee that he has not maintained books of account even when the turnover declared is at Rs.8

NEERA KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

73,50,020/- from relinquishment of right; claimed exemption u/s 54F of Rs. 52,53,008/- on the basis of new investment in a residential house; and thereby declared taxable gain of Rs. 20,97,012/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny-assessment and the Ld. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3). Subsequently,the Ld. PCIT examined