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

SMT HAFIZ SHAIKH,DEWAS vs. THE ITO WARD-1, DEWAS

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihafiz Shaikh Ito Ward-1 32/2, Laxmi Park Moti Dewas Vs. Bunglow Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajups6986 L Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023

sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Hence, in view above provision, assessee have wrongly claimed exemption u/s 54B of Rs.1,54,75

SHRI VINOD CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. ITO1 3), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Vinod Choudhary, Ito 1(3) 12, Niranjanpur, Indore Vs. Lasudia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akrpv 4892 Q Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bomb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

75,600/- vide Page 2 of 7 Vinod Choudhary Page 3 of 7 registered sale-deed dated 27.04.2011 to M/s. Brilliant Homes Pvt. Ltd. Indore which was taxable in AY 2012-13 but the assessee did not pay tax on the capital gain arising therefrom. Based thereon, Ld. AO recorded satisfaction and issued notice u/s 148. In compliance to such

SHRI HUKUMCHAND CHOUDHARY ,INDORE vs. ITO (3),INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, the land sold was a capital asset thus the said transfer of property attracted Long Term Capital Gains on the sale consideration of Rs. 4,31,75

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents, bills, vouchers

GOVARDHAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital Shri Vrindavan Tayal ITA No.242/Ind/2019 & 245-247/Ind/2019 gain as claimed exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act:- S. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of purchase note dt. 23.03.2012 issued by Vishal Vijay 68 Shah regarding purchase of 200 shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Limited for Rs. 9,048/- 2. Copy of ledger account

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital Shri Vrindavan Tayal ITA No.242/Ind/2019 & 245-247/Ind/2019 gain as claimed exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act:- S. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of purchase note dt. 23.03.2012 issued by Vishal Vijay 68 Shah regarding purchase of 200 shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Limited for Rs. 9,048/- 2. Copy of ledger account

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital Shri Vrindavan Tayal ITA No.242/Ind/2019 & 245-247/Ind/2019 gain as claimed exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act:- S. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of purchase note dt. 23.03.2012 issued by Vishal Vijay 68 Shah regarding purchase of 200 shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Limited for Rs. 9,048/- 2. Copy of ledger account

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital Shri Vrindavan Tayal ITA No.242/Ind/2019 & 245-247/Ind/2019 gain as claimed exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act:- S. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Copy of purchase note dt. 23.03.2012 issued by Vishal Vijay 68 Shah regarding purchase of 200 shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Limited for Rs. 9,048/- 2. Copy of ledger account

HITESH KUMAR BINDAL,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

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

section 143(3) wherein the AO treated the shares of KCLIPL as what is called “penny stock” and capital gain declared by assessee therefrom as managed or non-genuine. Accordingly, the AO made addition u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 9,21,930/- and Rs. 19,42,723/- (equivalent to the full value of sale consideration received by assessee

HITESH KUMAR BINDAL,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

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

section 143(3) wherein the AO treated the shares of KCLIPL as what is called “penny stock” and capital gain declared by assessee therefrom as managed or non-genuine. Accordingly, the AO made addition u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 9,21,930/- and Rs. 19,42,723/- (equivalent to the full value of sale consideration received by assessee

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Capital Gains on Compulsory Acquisition) -Rs 24,79,657 2.Addition under Section 56 (Interest Income on Compensation) Rs.7,12,816 3. Income originally declared by the appellant-Rs. 1,75

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.

capital gains. In the face of this material on record, it is difficult to explain that the assessment order was made without making any enquiry into the goodwill account of Rs. 10,75,000. . . ." (p. 158) [Except the fact to be pleaded separately in this particular paragraph] 12. So far as the jurisdiction of the Ld.PCIT under Section

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

capital gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after hearing objections. He should determine the question in the case of one person (in this case of the other person (in this case in other year) in whose case assessment has to be made protectively. Thus, protective assessment has to be done only after substantive assessment is done

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.

capital gain. 6.Whether Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 18 lacs made on account of cash deposits in bank account. 7.The appellant craves leave to add to or deduct from or otherwise amend the above rounds of appeal. 5. Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of Assessing Officer along with furnishing remand report dated

ITO3(1) , INDORE vs. M/S PARAMETRIC TRADING P LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

75,000/- on account of advances received against order iv. Rs.76,43,79,291/- on account of received against advances given 5. Apart from that deletion of addition of Rs.13,53,654/- on account of short term capital gain treating as business income. 6. The brief facts leading to this case is this that the assessee is a Private Limited