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

section 50C would not have any application. Since we are remanding the core issue back to Ld. AO, we are not adjudicating this additional plea at this stage. However, the assessee shall be free to make any such submission before Ld. AO, if required, and the Ld. AO would take a call in the matter in accordance with the provision

M/S. MANISH FILMS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 [ITA 152/Ind/2015] [M/s. Manish Films Pvt. Ltd., Indore] were not applicable to transfer of land and building being a lease hold property”. The said question was dismissed on the ground that the revenue had not preferred any appeal against the order of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Atul G. Puranik

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

disallowed an amount of Rs. 5,16,033/- out of total selling expenses for want of supporting documents etc. 5. Subsequently, a notice under section 263 of the Income Tax Act was issued by the Pr. CIT, Indore for the following three reasons and he was of the opinion that the assessment order as passed by the assessing officer

M/S BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

section 50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

section 50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

section 50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

M/S. BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

section 50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE LTD., DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

section 50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

section 50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

section 50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

SMT. CHANDRAVATI KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

50C. Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the “stamp valuation authority”) for the purpose of payment

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

50C. Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the “stamp valuation authority”) for the purpose of payment

SHRI MANMOHAN GAMBHIR,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

section 50C of the Act and adopted the market value, thereby he made addition of Rs.26,86,670/-. [ITA No.293/Ind/2018] [Shri Manmohan Gambhir, Indore] 8. Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the order of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below

SHRI HANIF SHEIKH,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

disallowance of brokerage expenses of Rs.3,60,000/-. Ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed. 8. As regards Ground No.2 which relates to addition of Rs.14,11,600/- made u/s 50C of the Act we observe that the assessee sold leased property at Rs.1,20,00,000/-. Assessee claimed it to be a disputed property. The guideline value

MANOHAR LAL GUPTA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(5), INDORE

In the result all the issues raised

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 Pan : Bcjpg9107Q Shri Manoharlal Gupta, V/S Ito-4(5), 204, Sant Marg, Indore Gandhi Nagar, Indore

Section 50C taking the fair market value and made addition of Rs.92,78,000/-. Ld. A.O made addition in respect of excess claim of index cost of acquisition. Disallowance

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 50C of the Act of Rs.35,46,018/-. The A.O. made addition of Rs.3,70,000/- in respect of the loans taken from his children. Further, the A.O. made disallowance

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 50C of the Act of Rs.35,46,018/-. The A.O. made addition of Rs.3,70,000/- in respect of the loans taken from his children. Further, the A.O. made disallowance

SUSHANT KUMAR CHATTERJEE,KOLAR ROAD vs. ITO- 1-(3) , BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Sushant Kumar Chatterjee, Ito-1(3), House No.34 Eden Garden, Bhopal Chunnabhati, Vs. Kolar Road, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acrpc0043Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024 O R D E R

disallowing claim on account of cost of improvement at Rs. 23,88,329/-. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned lower authorities erred and were not justified in making addition on account of difference in Value adopted as per section 50C