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

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

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

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(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

THE ACIT, 3(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI SEEMA NAGPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pawan Nagpal Acit-3(1) A-4, Housing Board Colony Vs. Bhopal Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3120A Assessment Year 2009-10 Acit-3(1) Smt. Seema Nagpal Bhopal Vs. P/O M/S. Active Motors A-4, Housing Board Colony Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3119R For Assessees Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca For Department Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

long term capital gain of sale of property is as under:- "MIs Active Motors was a partnership firm of Shri Pawan Nagpal and Smt. Seema Nagpal. It was working since 1999. In the F. Y. 2001-02 plot of land was purchased. The payment was made from the funds of the firm, The payment had been made vide cheque

SHRI PAWAN NAGPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pawan Nagpal Acit-3(1) A-4, Housing Board Colony Vs. Bhopal Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3120A Assessment Year 2009-10 Acit-3(1) Smt. Seema Nagpal Bhopal Vs. P/O M/S. Active Motors A-4, Housing Board Colony Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3119R For Assessees Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca For Department Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

long term capital gain of sale of property is as under:- "MIs Active Motors was a partnership firm of Shri Pawan Nagpal and Smt. Seema Nagpal. It was working since 1999. In the F. Y. 2001-02 plot of land was purchased. The payment was made from the funds of the firm, The payment had been made vide cheque

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)

depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) further stated that 31 Mohanlal Chugh & others without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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)

depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) further stated that 31 Mohanlal Chugh & others without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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)

depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) further stated that 31 Mohanlal Chugh & others without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

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

long-term capital 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

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

term 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

INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2009-10

depreciation in the value of the foreign currency is regarded either as profit or loss on trading/revenue account. On the other hand, if the foreign exchange liability arises in relation to acquisition of fixed asset, the corresponding gain or loss is regarded as of a capital nature. 2.3 Foreign exchange loss cannot be disallowed merely because the loss

M/S KEERIT FRIENDS FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Keerti Friends Dcit-1(1) Foundation, बनाम/ A-114, Shahpura, Indore Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aabtk4655N Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2019

long term capital gain. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Bhopal erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,28,434/- made by the ld. Assessing officer on account of depreciation

SIGMA CHEMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

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

Depreciation as Admisie 1686369 Business Income 12902563 Income from Capital Gain Yr. Set Off of Unabsorbed Capital Loss Astt. Long Term

THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL vs. M/S. BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

depreciation and had offered long term capital gains of Rs. 87,68,157/- to tax in the return of income

M/S. BHASKAR INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

depreciation and had offered long term capital gains of Rs. 87,68,157/- to tax in the return of income