SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

House property, Business and income from share trading. The assessed claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs.20,46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

House property, Business and income from share trading. The assessed claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs.20,46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

House property, Business and income from share trading. The assessed claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs.20,46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

House property, Business and income from share trading. The assessed claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs.20,46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain

SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

House property, Business and income from share trading. The assessed claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs.20,46,018/- for Long Term Capital Gain

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

House property 3,90,000 2 Income from business (being 5,71,856 proprietor of M/s Samarth Impex, Indore) 3 Income from Long Term Capital 27,50,406 Gain

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

long term capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/ - on a scrip named Shri Nidhi Trading Limited. On scrutinizing the complete transaction the total sale value came to Rs.36,72,631/- and total purchase value came to Rs.2,07,460/-. The assessee accordingly showed capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/-. The Assessing Officer after seeking details from the 15 Annapurna Maheshwari

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

long term capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/ - on a scrip named Shri Nidhi Trading Limited. On scrutinizing the complete transaction the total sale value came to Rs.36,72,631/- and total purchase value came to Rs.2,07,460/-. The assessee accordingly showed capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/-. The Assessing Officer after seeking details from the 15 Annapurna Maheshwari

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

long term capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/ - on a scrip named Shri Nidhi Trading Limited. On scrutinizing the complete transaction the total sale value came to Rs.36,72,631/- and total purchase value came to Rs.2,07,460/-. The assessee accordingly showed capital gain of Rs.34,65,171/-. The Assessing Officer after seeking details from the 15 Annapurna Maheshwari

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

long term capital gains from sale of property on 8.6.2008 on which net capital gains of Rs. 32,77,450/- . The assessee has purchased land for Rs. 38.88 Lakh till September 2006. However, due to petition filed for injunction by the owners of land, the Civil Court ordered status quo, which was prevented the assessee for further construction

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

house-property, business / profession and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 66,28,161/- earned

SHRI SURESH AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO -5(3), INDORE

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

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

Property Act 1882, r.w. section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Considering these circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the AO should have taken sale consideration at Rs. 8,70,411/- on sale of this land and not Rs. 14 Lakh which otherwise does not fall under the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, we direct

THE DCIT,, RATLAM vs. SHRI ANIL JHALANI, RATLAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the cross

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

long term capital gain amounting to Rs.75,55,894/- and short term capital gain of Rs.8,72,925/- in the original return of income or in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The learned DR drew our attention towards paragraph 9 of the assessment order and submitted

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

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 for limited scrutiny for following terms: S.No Reason for selection of case in scrutiny 1 Large deduction claimed u/s 54B,54C,54D, 54G, 54GA 2 Sale consideration of the Property

SMT. USHADEVI MANSINGAHKA,BHILWADA vs. AYAKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Ushadevi Mansinghka Ito-1 बनाम/ Mansinghka House, Gangapur Khandwa Vs. Chouraha Bhilwada (Rajasthan) (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aeepm1258G Appellant By Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca Revenue By Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 20.03.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 23.12.2016 By Ito- Khandwa.

House, Gangapur Khandwa Vs. Chouraha Bhilwada (Rajasthan) (Appellant) (Revenue) PAN: AEEPM1258G Appellant by Shri C.P. Rawka, CA Revenue by Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 26.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: This appeal at the instance of Assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 is directed against the order

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

House property u/s 54 Rs. 84,21,000/- (65,00,000/- plus 19,21,000) 7,00,000/- (Round off) cost of Repair” (iii) Revised Computation filed before PCIT – (copy placed at Page No. 65-66 of Paper-Book and accepted by Ld. AR during hearing): Income from Capital Gain (Chapter IV E) Nil Long Term

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

house property have been shown in the return. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and relying on decision of CIT vs Kumbhazha Tourist Home(ker) 328ITR 600, I find that there is no infirmity in the order of AD in assessing long term capital gain

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

house property have been shown in the return. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and relying on decision of CIT vs Kumbhazha Tourist Home(ker) 328ITR 600, I find that there is no infirmity in the order of AD in assessing long term capital gain