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

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

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

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

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

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

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

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

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

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

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

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

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

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

capital gain on sale of shares. He failed to appreciate that the appellant did not earn long term gain but incurred business loss on trading in shares of VAS Infra. There was no evidence to show that the assessee has pre-arranged any profit/loss through these shares. The appellant has been carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such

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 of Rs.1,20,21,991/- on deemed sales consideration of Rs.6,55,18,000/- u/s 50C which works out to 18.34%. Further, the assessee and co-owner have not claimed any other administrations expenses, financial expenses or depreciation

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 of Rs.1,20,21,991/- on deemed sales consideration of Rs.6,55,18,000/- u/s 50C which works out to 18.34%. Further, the assessee and co-owner have not claimed any other administrations expenses, financial expenses or depreciation

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 of Rs.1,20,21,991/- on deemed sales consideration of Rs.6,55,18,000/- u/s 50C which works out to 18.34%. Further, the assessee and co-owner have not claimed any other administrations expenses, financial expenses or depreciation

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

capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with……………” Provisions of section 54F require construction of one residential house in India. Construction of a residential house means all the investments/expenses incurred to make it a habitual place to live. All the investments made at the time of construction of new residential house to give it an adequate standard of living

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

capital gain and computed taxable income on the basis of section 50C. When the Ld. AO confronted the assessee in this regard, the assessee made following submission: “The assessee is in property broker ship business since long and he also doing purchase/sale of immovable properties. The assessee has done similar type of transaction during the assessment year

M/S. SHREE VIGNESH WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DY CIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vighnesh Warehouse Dcit, Cpc & Distributors Private Bangaluru बनाम/ Limited Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue)

depreciation and capital gain as per section 50 read with section 32 of Income-tax Act, 1961 is given, according

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

gains by invoking section 50C of the Act, were examined by the CIT(Appeals) on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer had rejected the assessee’s claim of construction on leasehold land due to absence of evidence regarding the timing of construction, that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim that part of the sale consideration

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other\nallowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned\n(hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the\nrelevant assessment year).\"\nIt is submitted that \"Reasons to Believe\" that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment is one of the conditions precedent for reopening of assessment

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

capital gains in shares with each script, period of holding etc. The transactions were through electronics system and assessee is also having a Demat account with margin penal. The contention of the assessee was that shares were purchased as an investment and also accounted for in the books of investment, but the same were treated as stock in trade

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

gains, on account of transfer of long term capital asset which was in the name of M/s.Karpagam Studios. The notice indicates that the petitioners could not have claimed deduction under Section 54(F) of the Act. It has also stated Page 8 of 15 Shreepal Humad Page 9 of 15 that the date of completion as per the completion certificate

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade