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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital asset as\nreduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with\nsuch transfer\". Therefore, bare meaning of Net Consideration differs from 50C\nwhich specifically replace stamp duty value for the purpose of section 48 only.\nJai Prakash Narayan Sharma\nITA No. 807/Ind/2024 – AY 2016-17\nThe provision of section 50C creates limited fiction to the section

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

Appeal is allowed

gain for the A.Y. 2012-13. The addition of\nRs.65,24,628/- is confirmed. The assessment of total income at Rs.7161200\nis confirmed.\nThe appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.”\nHaving heard learned Representatives of both sides and on a careful\nconsideration of orders of lower-authorities as re-produced above and also\nthe documents held in Paper-Book

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15-3-2020 till 28- 2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section

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 in his original return 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 etc. in respect of the project before the Assessing Officer. We also find that

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 in his original return 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 etc. in respect of the project before the Assessing Officer. We also find that

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 in his original return 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 etc. in respect of the project before the Assessing Officer. We also find that

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

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

section 54B. Ld. DR submitted that the AO has perfectly dealt with both of these aspects and thereafter taxed the capital-gain which remained taxable as per provisions of Income-tax Act. Ld. DR submitted that there is no fallacy in the action of AO; therefore his action must be upheld. 6. Replying to above, Ld. AR representing the assessee

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

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

section 54B. Ld. DR submitted that the AO has perfectly dealt with both of these aspects and thereafter taxed the capital-gain which remained taxable as per provisions of Income-tax Act. Ld. DR submitted that there is no fallacy in the action of AO; therefore his action must be upheld. 6. Replying to above, Ld. AR representing the assessee

LATE SHRI KHEMRAJ PATIDAR (THROUGH WIFE AND LEGAL HEIR SMT. BHAGWATI PATIDAR),BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 2(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain without giving\ndeduction of 'cost'. This approach of AO is very much against the\n'mode of computation' prescribed in section 48 of the Act. Ld. AR\npointed out that the impugned land was an ancestral land and even if\nthe details/documents of 'cost' were not available, the fair market\nvalue of land

GEETA BAI,BERASIA vs. ITO 4(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

section 250 are bad in law as well as on facts and are liable to be annulled. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant did not get the opportunity of being heard and hence the order is against the natural justice of law. The Learned CIT Appeals upheld the ex parte order passed

GEETA BAI,BHOPAL vs. ITO 4(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

section 250 are bad in law as well as on facts and are liable to be annulled. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant did not get the opportunity of being heard and hence the order is against the natural justice of law. The Learned CIT Appeals upheld the ex parte order passed

GEETA BAI,BERASIA vs. ITO 4(4) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

section 250 are bad in law as well as on facts and are liable to be annulled. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant did not get the opportunity of being heard and hence the order is against the natural justice of law. The Learned CIT Appeals upheld the ex parte order passed

SH. PARMANAND SISODIYA,INDORE vs. ITO-1(2), INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Parmanand Sisodiya, Ito, Flat No.404-405, Ax-18-C, 1(2), Satyamitra Paradise, Indore. Scheme No.71, Gumasta Vs. Nagar, Indore. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alops1416K Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

90,050/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54-B for Rs. 87,03,000/-, in respect of capital gain declared by the assessee for exchange of agricultural land valuing Rs. 95 lakhs for another agricultural land for Rs. 65 lakhs

SITARAM MUCHHALA,MARDANA vs. ITO KHARGONE, KHARGONE

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

90,530. Based on information received from the Land Acquisition Officer, Maheshwar Hydro Electric Project, it was found that the appellant received compensation of Rs.24,79,657 for the compulsory acquisition of land and interest of Rs. 14,25,633 for delayed payment of compensation. However, these amounts were not fully disclosed in the return, leading to the issuance

LATE SMT. MARIAM BAI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI ABDUL RAZAK CHARA),INDORE (M.P.) vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 4(3), INDORE, INDORE (M.P.)

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Mariam Bai (Through Income Tax Officer 4(3), Legal Heir Shri Abdul Razak Indore Chara), Vs. 12, Daulaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Advpc5505A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2024 O R D E R

section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts of the case even when the said amount of cash deposit was made out of cash withdrawals from the bank account of the appellant on prior occasions only. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16 .08.2023

Capital Gain, interest income during the FY 2009-10. It is also noticed that the assessee had not filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, which is on due on 31/07/2010. Assessee has filed his return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the 1.T. Act, on 30/08/2017 vide acknowledgement

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15-3-2020 till 28- 2-2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section

BADAM SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO 4(1) , BHOPAL

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibadam Singh, Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ 392 Gram Palasi, 4(1), Vs. New Jail Road, Bhopal Karond, Bhopal (Pan: Drhps5664B) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

90,500/- to arrive at capital gain of Rs 54,31,180/- , R ignoring the consideration shown in documents of transfer of land. Ground 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case no cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and expenses relating to transfer of land has been considered which is bad in law and erroneous. Ground