MANISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM NYATI ,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

80,505 respectively which by no means was meager. The Profit after Tax of Sunrise Asian Ltd as on 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 was Rs. 27,58,163 and Rs. 69,54,857 respectively which by no means was meager. The Reserves & Surplus of the company stood at Rs. 32.21 crores and Rs. 32.61 crores as on 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 respectively

SMT VIJAYA NYATI, DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

80,505 respectively which by no means was meager. The Profit after Tax of Sunrise Asian Ltd as on 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 was Rs. 27,58,163 and Rs. 69,54,857 respectively which by no means was meager. The Reserves & Surplus of the company stood at Rs. 32.21 crores and Rs. 32.61 crores as on 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 respectively

SMT. MAMTA NYATI DHAMNOD DISTT. DHAR,DHAMNOD vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

80,505 respectively which by no means was meager. The Profit after Tax of Sunrise Asian Ltd as on 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 was Rs. 27,58,163 and Rs. 69,54,857 respectively which by no means was meager. The Reserves & Surplus of the company stood at Rs. 32.21 crores and Rs. 32.61 crores as on 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 respectively

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

80,747/- be accepted as such. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of treating the long term capital gain of Rs. 17,23,052/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) as unexplained credits u/s 68 by holding these transactions as sham and bogus. That on the facts and in the circumstances

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

80,747/- be accepted as such. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of treating the long term capital gain of Rs. 17,23,052/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) as unexplained credits u/s 68 by holding these transactions as sham and bogus. That on the facts and in the circumstances

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

80,747/- be accepted as such. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of treating the long term capital gain of Rs. 17,23,052/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) as unexplained credits u/s 68 by holding these transactions as sham and bogus. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

80 of the paper book) from the perusal of which it would be seen that the appellant had earned an income of Rs.10 Lacs during the FY 12-13 and after taking effect of all the 16 Ayush Jain & Ors ITA No.616, 617/Ind/2019 & 293&294/Ind/2020 transaction during the year the closing capital of the appellant was Rs.25.18 lacs. Being

SHRI NILESH 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

80 of the paper book) from the perusal of which it would be seen that the appellant had earned an income of Rs.10 Lacs during the FY 12-13 and after taking effect of all the 16 Ayush Jain & Ors ITA No.616, 617/Ind/2019 & 293&294/Ind/2020 transaction during the year the closing capital of the appellant was Rs.25.18 lacs. Being

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

Capital Gain Treated as business income as discussed above 1,19,23,982 D) Income from other sources a) Dividend income not exempted As discussed above 2,15,542 b) Income from interests 18,19,034 c) Winning from Lotteries etc. 500 d) Minors, Total Income clubbed 9,386 20,44,462 Gross Total Income 3,18,92,207 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 56 of the Act.” 7. During appellate proceeding, Ld. CIT(A) reversed the action of Ld. AO. Ld. CIT(A) accepted assessee’s claim of long-term capital gain by observing as under: “4.3 I have duly considered tire facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant’s written submission find that in support

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

80,000/- to M/s Raksha Buildcom (Shri Vipin Goel) on 27.03.2010 from which declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 86,88,960/- after deducting indexed cost of Rs. 1,91,040/-, copy of relevant page of ITR at Page 62 of Paper-Book. During original assessment made u/s 143(3), the AO accepted the long-term capital gain

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

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

M/S SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. THE DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gains would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction, if the transfer had not taken place.” 12. At this juncture, therefore, deliberation is required on the main issue as to whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under Section ITA Nos.65/Ind/2017&726/Ind/2017 Asst.Year

M/S SHRI BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,NEEMUCH vs. DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gains would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction, if the transfer had not taken place.” 12. At this juncture, therefore, deliberation is required on the main issue as to whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under Section ITA Nos.65/Ind/2017&726/Ind/2017 Asst.Year

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

PARMANAND SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO 5(5), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

80,75,224/- as against the Returned income of Rs. 9,57,130/- thereby confirming addition of Rs. 71,18,094/- without hearing and passing an ex-parte order is quite unjustified, excessive and bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in holding that the entire capital gain

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition