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

section 54F of the Act in A.Y. 2010-11 and not taxing the long term capital gain in A.Y. 2013-14 and if it be taxed in A.Y. 2010- 11 then corresponding deduction be directed for A.Y. 2013- 14. Hence, these are being considered together and being disposed-of by common manner. 3. Succinctly, facts as culled out from

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

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

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

92,88,000/- for stamp duty purposes. During assessment proceedings the valuation was challenged and the matter was referred to the DVO for valuation of the property. The DVO determined the value of the property at Rs.1,26,54,892/-. Satyanarayan Sharma /ITANo.426/Ind/2018 The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54B and 54F against the capital gains accruing on the sale

PRATAP BAJAJ,INDORE vs. ITO-4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 13. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify of any grounds before final date of hearing. Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, Following grounds of appeal in ITANo.489/Ind/2019 (Shri Pratap Bajaj):- 1. That

MANORAMA DEVI SHARMA,INDORE vs. ITO-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

section 69C, without any evidence against the assessee which is quite unjust illegal and against the facts of the case. 13. Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter or modify of any grounds before final date of hearing. Smt. Manorama Devi Sharma & Shri Prakash Bajaj ITA Nos. 39 & 489/Ind/2019, Following grounds of appeal in ITANo.489/Ind/2019 (Shri Pratap Bajaj):- 1. That

M/S. SANJAY ONKARMAL AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO-5(3) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

section 234A and 234B of the Act. 5. The appellant reserves her right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by her. 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following two common issues have been raised :- 4 Smt. Shweta Agrawal & Anr ITA No.281 & 279/Ind/2019 (i) Genuineness of Long Term Capital Gain from sale

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1),R-5, INDORE

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

section 234A and 234B of the Act. 5. The appellant reserves her right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by her. 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following two common issues have been raised :- 4 Smt. Shweta Agrawal & Anr ITA No.281 & 279/Ind/2019 (i) Genuineness of Long Term Capital Gain from sale

SMT. MAMTA SINGH,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Smt. Mamta Singh Vs Acit-3(1) Ef-14, Scheme No.54, Indore Vijay Nagar, Indore

92,99,250/-- arising on sale of the above 3 Mamta Singh agricultural lands as the income from business by treating the gain resulting from sale of said land earlier offered but withdrawn by appellant as Short Term Capital Gains to be income from business. 7) That the Learned CIT(A) as also the AO failed to see that since

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "specified domestic transaction" in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions, not being an international transaction, namely:— (i) any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 40A; (ii) any transaction referred

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

92,81,150/- surrendered during the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act was purely a business income liable to normal rate of tax and both the lower authorities have erred in charging it with the tax rate @60% applying the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act by treating the alleged undisclosed income as income referred in Section

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. 1,75,380 6.4 After due consideration of all the facts available on record, the additions of Rs 31,92

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

Section 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,48,92,31,583/- in regard to the amount deposited in the bank account of the assessee. Further, addition of Rs.13,53,654/- has also been made by the Ld. AO treating the short term capital gain

SARWAR MOHD. KHAN,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground itself

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09

Capital Gain. 1.6 Learned CIT (A) vide his order dated 31.3.2016 dismissed ground no. 1 by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Biju Patnaik. As regard addition of Rs. 39,40,000/- (38,00,000/- + Rs. 1,00,000/-) he dismissed the ground by holding that the assessee has preferred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RANDHIR GAWADE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

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

capital gain of Rs.31,90,952/- and claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act of Rs.1,31,00,044/-. The A.O. further observed that the market value of the property was at Rs.4,01,77,000/- as per stamp valuation authority. The A.O. therefore made addition of Rs.1,26,77,000/-. Further, the A.O. also made disallowance of exemption claimed

LATE SHRI BALKRISHAN JOSHI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI BHOOPENDRA JOSHI),INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi Income-Tax Officer, (Through L/H Shri 5(1), Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore बनाम/ 541, Alok Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj 0180 C Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. This is the 2nd round of litigation by assessee before us. The background facts are such that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 declaring a total income

PITAMBER LAL SUNDERDAS RAJDEV,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(3), BHYOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raopitamber Lal Sunderdas Rajdev Ito 3(3) Sundervan Nursery, Bhopal Bhopal Indore Road, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Adfpr 4144Q Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .12.2023

92,300.00 and disallowing the deduction under section 54 B of the Act. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter amend or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before the time of hearing.” Page 1 of 13 Pitamber Lal Sunderdas Rajdev Page 2 of 13 2. The assessee is an individual and deriving income from marriage garden

MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

92,359/- was claimed as site expenses which almost three times from the amount which was claimed in previous year, Rs. 50,17,438/- was claimed under the head electricity expenses however no such expense was claimed during the previous year, Rs. 10,32,070/- was claimed as freight expenses which is almost five times of the amount which