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

2 is statistically allowed. 23. Before taking up next ground, we would also like to make a mention that Ld. AR has made an additional pleading that even if the impugned flat is treated as fixed asset and not stock-in-trade, section 50C would not have any application. Since we are remanding the core issue back

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

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

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

2), the property is [ITA 152/Ind/2015] [M/s. Manish Films Pvt. Ltd., Indore] described as land and building and it is also stated that the electricity and water connection in running condition is part of the sale. This clause does not say anything about the furniture and fixtures and other gadgets. Admittedly, the assessee has been running a cinema hall

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

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

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

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

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

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

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

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

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

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

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

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

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

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

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

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

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was framed vide order dated 5.3.2015. The assessing officer while framing the assessment made addition by disallowing the deductions claimed

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

2) and 142(1) served upon the assessee. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed at total income of Rs.79,09,900/- after making addition u/s 50C at Rs.14,11,600/- and Disallowance of brokerage expenses at Rs.3,60,000/-. Hanif Sheikh 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 5. Now the assessee

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

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 of interest paid on term loan of Rs.9,38,756/-, disallowance of agricultural income of Rs.2 lakhs, cash deposited in the bank of Rs.7 lakhs, purchase of shares

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 of interest paid on term loan of Rs.9,38,756/-, disallowance of agricultural income of Rs.2 lakhs, cash deposited in the bank of Rs.7 lakhs, purchase of shares

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