KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

section 54 to 54F yet disallowed exemption u/s 54F ultimately for two-fold reasons, namely (i) the assessee has not invested entire amount of consideration in CGDS A/c, and (ii) the assessee purchased new residential flat on 22.09.2017 for Rs. 49,18,500/- but it was beyond the prescribed limit of 2 years u/s 54F from the date of transfer

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

1 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024- AY: 2015-16 “1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and the facts of the case and confirmed the assessed total income at Rs.3,10,13,610/- under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as against the return income at Rs.49,130/-. 2.That

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

1 31.03.2013 Smt. Shabnam Khan 61,16,000/- W/s. Imran Khan 2 31.03.2013 Ku. Sheenam Khan 19,67,000/- (Minor) D/o Imran Khan 3 29.03.2013 Ku. Iqra Khan (Minor) 21,85,420/ D/o Imran Khan 4 29.03.2013 Mr. Imran Khan (self) 69,55,000/- 5 29.03.2013 Faizan Khan (minor). 61,09,000/- S/o Imran Khan Total purchase value Rs.2

SHRI KAILASH BHAGWAN CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

54F of the Act. Against this, the assessee is in the present appeal. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, written synopsis of arguments is on [ ITA No.68/Ind/2017] [Shri Kailash Bhagwan Choudhary, Indore] record. No request is made for adjournment of the appeal. Therefore, we have taken up the appeal in the absence of the assessee. The synopsis

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

54F(1) 43,31,991 Less Investment by way of deposit in Capital Gain Deposit Scheme u/s 54 F(4) utilized 46,13,000 in next year towards construction of house. Total Investment u/s 54 F 89,44,991 89,44,991 Net Income from Long Term Capital Gain 1,93,656 3. The case of the assessee was selected

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

1,15,00,000/-in construction of residential house and, therefore entitled to claimed deduction u/s 54F. The Ld. A.O. is wrong Page 29 of 32 Sewa Sahakari Sammittee Maryadit Beed Page 30 of 32 and has erred in law in disallowing the claimed deduction of Rs. 83,54,434/- u/s 54F the Act, which deserves to be allowed

MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

1,15,00,000/-in construction of residential house and, therefore entitled to claimed deduction u/s 54F. The Ld. A.O. is wrong and has erred in law in disallowing the claimed deduction of Rs. 83,54,434/- u/s 54F the Act, which deserves to be allowed. 5. We found that in the previous year relevant to the above said assessment

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

1,15,00,000/-in construction of residential house and, therefore entitled to claimed deduction u/s 54F. The Ld. A.O. is wrong and has erred in law in disallowing the claimed deduction of Rs. 83,54,434/- u/s 54F the Act, which deserves to be allowed. 5. We found that in the previous year relevant to the above said assessment

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

1,16,500. There was an AIR information received by the AO showing that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.68,30,000 in his bank account with SBI Indore. Hence, case was selected under scrutiny. During the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has sold his ancestral agricultural land (held for more than 30 years) admeasuring 0.506 hectares

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

54F of the Act even when investment was made by Page 16 of 21 Bhawani Shankar Page 17 of 21 the appellant within two year from the date of receipt of the amount from the company 8.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld Assessing officer erred in referring the matter

I T O, AGAR MALWA vs. SHRI VARDHMAN GADIA, MAHIDPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 54F of the Act. Hence, we do not find any justification in disallowance the said claim by the same AO which has been rightly taken into consideration in its proper perspective by the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the order passed by the AO in re- assessment proceeding. We, therefore, find no irregularities in the said order passed

BHAGWAT PRASAD MALVIYA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

sections 54B and 54F. A rectification notice u/s 154 was issued, and after considering the assessee's submissions, the AO passed a rectification order disallowing part of the claimed exemptions amounting to Rs. 1

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question. 17. This distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising jurisdiction under Section

M/S SURJEET AUTO AGENCY ,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

1) of section 263 of the Act there must be material before the Commissioner to consider that the order passed 12 Surjeet Auto Agency by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We have already held what is erroneous. It must be an order which

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

disallow the deduction as claimed by the appellant under section 54B and 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 even when the appellant has rightly claimed deduction of Rs. 91,35,500/- and Rs. 85,86,419/- and under section 54B and 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 respectively. 4. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito, Kalra, 1(1), बनाम/ Agar Road, Ujjain Ganesh Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

section 54F prohibits purchase of second residential house as being claimed by revenue. But he submits that the assessee’s case fits in that legal provision Page 2 of 7 Shri Harvinder Singh Kalra, Ujjain vs. ITO 1(1), Ujjain ITA No.128/Ind/2023 – AY 2014-15 and in fact does not violate the same. He submitted that both of the residential

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

section 45(1), 48, 55(2) and 2(29B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Ld. AO was wrong in rejecting the claim of long-term capital gain and assessing the same as income from other sources. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) who has, after mindful consideration, reversed the action

SARWAR MOHD. KHAN,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground itself

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09

1,92,00,000/- made by the AO. (iii) Hon'ble ITAT Indore Bench vide its order dated 12.6.2012 (iv) Not only this, the penalty of Rs. 58,00,0001- imposed by the AO was also confirmed by Hon'ble ITAT Indore Bench vide its order dated 20.5.2016. 2.3 (i) That the assessee has paid brokerage of Rs. 38.40 lacs