PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

79 of the paper book) 21.2 It is a well settled phenomenon that at the initial stage small steps are being taken and with the efflux of time and by gaining knowledge and information giant leaps are taken in future. In the same way, having a good return on investment made earlier and hoping to repeat the success in future

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

capital gains of Rs. 99,40,150 and added to the income of the assessee. 4. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) observed that the assessee has sold the Shri Sushil Kumar Bafna, Ujjain v. ITO-1(1) /I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014/A.Y.:10-11 Page 7 of 24 land

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

section 143(3) of IT, Act, 1961 at Rs.3,17,71,700/- 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.2,15,542/- and allowed the assessee’s claim of profit from purchase and sale of equity shares held for less

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

section 45(1), 48, 55(2) and 2(29B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Ld. AO was wrong in rejecting the claim of long-term capital gain and assessing the same as income from other sources. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) who has, after mindful consideration, reversed the action

DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI PRAKASH BHOJWANI, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Shri Prakash Bhojwani, 1(1), H.No. 7, Parika Phase-I, Bhopal Walmi Road, बनाम/ Chuna Bhatti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue / Respondent) (Assessee / Appellant) Pan: Abvpb 8825 E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

79, and that out of his total short term capital gain only Rs. 7,52,383/- was on account of intra-day sales and purchase of shares and constitute business income u/s 28 of the Act. The assessee further submitted that the shares investment is his “Investment Portfolio” which comprise of shares of different companies. Assessee stated in his reply

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

Capital Gain of Rs.6,63,525/- made by the Ld. AO. 10. We observe that the assessee along with three other persons purchased 4.238 hectare agricultural land at village-Barkheda Nathu, Distt-Bhopal on 05.12.2007 for a consideration of Rs.40,20,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.3,78,000/- was spent. Assessee’s share of investment in land was Rs.8

SMT. MANISHA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain from sale of share from Kappac Pharma Ltd and made the addition for Long Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee. Apart from this Ld. Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288 & 410/Ind/2019 A.O has commonly concluded that both the Turbotech Engineering Ltd and Kappac Pharma Ltd are small and penny

SHRI HAKIMUDDIN KHAMBATI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4) RANGE-4, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act for Long Term Capital Gain from sale of share from Kappac Pharma Ltd and made the addition for Long Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee. Apart from this Ld. Hakumuddin Khambati & Anr ITA No.288 & 410/Ind/2019 A.O has commonly concluded that both the Turbotech Engineering Ltd and Kappac Pharma Ltd are small and penny

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

capital gain affirmed the view of the A.O. in respect of rejection of claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act and also sustained the exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Against this, the assessee is in the present appeal. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, written synopsis of arguments is on [ ITA No.68/Ind/2017] [Shri Kailash Bhagwan

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 is invested in a residential house. In the case of purchase of a house, the benefit is available if the investment is made within a period of one year before or after the date on which the transfer took place and in case of construction of a house, the benefit is available if the investment is made within

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

79,170/- made by Ld. AO by way of short-term capital gain by invoking section 50C of the act. 15. Facts

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

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

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

79,768 forms part of ‘cost of new asset’. 2. Provisions of section 54F read – “………………….or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, one residential house in India (hereinafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

capital gain 1,86,107 32,32,461 Page 3 of 11 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(4), Bhopal ITA No. 208/Ind/2022 – AY 2009-10 Aggrieved, the assessee carried mater in first appeal but did not get any relief. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. Ld. AR for assessee drew our attention

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

gains arising on sale of land, which the assessee has claimed to\nbe sale of rural agricultural lands and the same being not covered by the definition\nof \" capital asset\", as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act 61, the\naddition is disputed by the assessee, being wrongly made on the basis of incorrect\nassumption of facts

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. in the identical situation were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 10. The Ld. AR relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. in the identical situation were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 10. The Ld. AR relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38) of the Act arising out of the sale of shares of M/s. Turbotech Engineering Ltd. in the identical situation were considered and allowed in favour of the assessee. He, therefore, prayed for deletion of addition made by the Revenue. 10. The Ld. AR relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of ITAT