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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

disallowing the cost of additional construction.", "held": "The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the assessee's claimed exemption amount and the applicable sections (54 vs 54F). The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO to re-adjudicate after verifying the correct investment amount and applying the appropriate section for exemption.", "result": "Remanded", "sections": [ "143(3)", "50C

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

NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

50C should not be invoked in your case. 5.1 Thus, the AO has raised specific quarries about the claim of short term capital loss of Rs.3,56,04,837/- arising from the transactions carried on stock exchange through the broker. The AO specifically asked the assessee to furnish details of cost of acquisitions with broker’s notes in respect

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

disallowance so sustained being illegal and wrong, the same may very kindly deletd. 2. The assessee is an individual and filed return of income on 31st March, 2016, declaring total income of Rs. 1,90,050/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has claimed deduction

ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SANJEEV AGRAWAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

disallowed u/s. 14A of the Act by the AO. 28. Replying to the above the learned counsel of the assessee, drawing our attention towards relevant part of the assessment order while adjudicating ground no. 12 of assessee, submitted that in para 4.8 the Ld. CIT(A) has considered entire facts and circumstances of the issue and thereafter deleted the addition

ROHIT KUMAR YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(5), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

50C at Rs.35,78,000/- and computed short term capital gain at Rs. 8,52,632/-. The 1/2 share of short term capital Page 3 of 9 ITANo.442/Ind/2023 Rohit Kumar Yadav gain amounting to Rs.4,26,316/- was added to the income of the assessee on substantive basis and equal amount was also added on protective basis subject

THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR SHAMBHUDAYAL AGRAWAL, INDORE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2011-12 Acit 5(1) Shri Raj Kumar Indore Shambhudayal Agrawal बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Adcpa0468M Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By S/Shri C.P. Rawka & Veenus Rawka, Cas Date Of Hearing: 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iii, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Indore Dated 25.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 27.02.2014 Framed By Dcit-5(1) Indore.

disallowances made by AO. 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 4,75,38,000/- ignoring the findings in the assessment order and remand report & also not verifying the source of investment made by the assessee. 3.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case