KANHAIYA LAL PANCHAL,RATLAM vs. BPL-W-(91)(95), RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2024-25 Kanhaiya Lal Panchal, Bpl-W-(91)(95) 1, Jadwasa Kala, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aqrpp0055D Assessee By Shri Kaide Kangsawala, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

capital gains. 5.11 The absence of a corresponding clause in section 111A is legally significant and supports the principle that – when the legislature intended to deny rebate in respect of special income (as in section 112A), it has done so expressly. In contrast, the absence of any exclusion in section 111A or in section 87A must be construed in favour

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 till the date of its diversion. Thereafter, capital gain computed considering the fair market value of land on the date of diversion of Rs.68,90,415/- comes to NIL and as such, capital gain is chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. In view of these facts in the light

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

8. Ground No. 2 is against treating short term capital gain of Rs. 57,28,867/- as business income. 8.1 The AO has noted in the reasons recorded u/s 147 and assessment order that many transactions of shares were found to be intraday sale and purchase of shares which constituted business income. Therefore, the short term capital gain

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

8. We find, there is no material to doubt the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. While procedural lapse may have been caused by the assessee in observing the provision of Section 54 of the Act, in absence of real prejudice having arisen to the revenue, upon claim capital gain

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

capital gain claimed as exempt under section 10(38) on account of sale of scrip of M/s Turbotech Engineering Ltd. Particulars Swati Luthra Shruti Luthra Namrata Sehgal Luthra Asha Luthra Date of 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 27.12.2011 Investment No. of Shares Radheyshyam Khandelwal & Ors ITA No.7,8

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 and also provision of section 50C of the Act are not applicable. It was also submitted that the person in whose favour in which the property has been gifted has also been assessed by Ld. DCIT-5(1), Shri Sunil sharma Bhopal order dated 20.03.2015 paced at pages 22 to 25 of the paper book. 8

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain to be\ninvested unlike net consideration under section 54F. The important thing here is\nto consider wording \"net consideration\", which is used for computing section\n54F benefit.\nMy honors at para 8

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

8. This Court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, that Section was in pari materia with Section 54F. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case

KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of the new asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1), exceeds (b) the amount that would not have been so charged had the amount actually utilised

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

8 kms. from nearest Municipality\nin terms of section 2(14)(iii)(b). Faced with this situation, we hold that the\nassessee's lands were excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' in terms\nof section 2(14)(iii) and therefore the resultant capital gain

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

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

section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

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

section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

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

section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

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

section 68 is not applicable on the transaction entered into by the assessee, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 2. That learned CIT(A) has erred in holding the genuine income of Long Term Capital Gain exempted u/s 10(38) of Rs a sham transaction, by applying test of human probability, without any evidence