SHANKAR SEWANI,NEW MARKET vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

house) for Rs.1,35,00,000/-. The assessee has submitted copy of registered deed of sale of property and purchase of property. The property was jointly purchased in FY 200-04 for a consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-. The reply of the AR has been considered. The assessee has duly offered the capital gain on the aforesaid property

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 for Rs. 2,02,15,584/- on 19.08.2016, thus assessee has invested in new residential property more than the sale consideration adopted by the stamp duty valuation authorities, hence LTCG if worked out as per the provisions of section 50C the entire LTCG will be available to the assessee as exempt; therefore, there is no need to work

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

200/-. It has been claimed in the said sale deed\nthat entire sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/- has been paid in cash in past\nand nothing has to be given henceforth. The facts inured from the sale deed\nwas quite contrary to the claim of the assessee that sale consideration\namounting to Rs.13,21,000/- has been received

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.

200/- as per the purchase deed placed on record. The cost of the plot with other expenses shown at Rs. 73,64,000/-. The assessee has further claimed Rs. 25,00,000/- towards construction of house. In total the assessee has claimed Rs. 85,86,419/- as exemption u/s 54F. But, corroborated evidences, such as MAP passed by town

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

property. E- M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. return of income filed on 27.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs.51,72,569/- which comprises of depreciation loss at Rs.1,53,066/- and business loss of Rs.50,19,503/-. Case selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS for the reason ‘large unsecured loans’. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act duly served upon

M/S BANSAL EXTRACTION & EXPORT P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit Export Pvt. Ltd. Central-1 3Rd Floor Tawa Complex, Bittan Bhopal Vs. Market E-4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

200/- Less: Total declared value Rs 25,16,01, 165/- Less: Revaluation reserve Rs. 5,00,00,000- Rx 20,16,01,165/- Difference in book investment und assessed value Rs 22,80,035/- The overall difference in actual book investment and assessed valuation is merely 1% of total investment .No addition is therefore called for." 10.3 The reply

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

House property). That the aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment order” issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A(1)/ 270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too. 2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of the Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

House property). That the\naforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the\n“impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment\norder" issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s.270A(1)/\n270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too.\n2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of\nthe Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

ATUL KUMAR ANCHALIA,JAORA vs. PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

House Property, but a person engaged in any business cannot file the return in form ITR-1. This clearly proves 3 I.TA No. 63/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Atul Kumar Anchalia. vs. PCIT that the assessee is not engaged in money lending business and assessee has not provided cash book for examination during the assessment proceedings. The A.O. also

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 from sale of equity shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. exempted u/s 10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. for Rs. 33,418/-; sold

SHRI RAJPAL JAIN,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3 (3), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirajpal Jain Ito-3(3) Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akypj 3794 L Assessee By Shri Girdhar Garg Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

200/- and held that there is no change in the taxable income therefore no adjustment is required. 4.Ground04. That the CIT(A) is in erred into not considering the plea 0 of the assessee that if the stamp duty paid is considered as income than the payment of stamp duly for purchase of house is also eligible for deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

property was transferred during F.Y 2009-10. 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in holding that the AO has made addition by disallowing development expenses of Rs.2,93,76,558/- on presumption basis whereas the fact is that the claim made by the assessee for development expenses has been

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

property was transferred during F.Y 2009-10. 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in holding that the AO has made addition by disallowing development expenses of Rs.2,93,76,558/- on presumption basis whereas the fact is that the claim made by the assessee for development expenses has been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

house is actually beyond understanding and uncalled for. That the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate this very important aspect. That, in response to the producing of receipts of the donation the same numbering 200 were filed before the Assessing Officer. Receipts are enclosed at page no. 03 to 205 of the paper book. However, the filing or not filing

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

house is actually beyond understanding and uncalled for. That the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate this very important aspect. That, in response to the producing of receipts of the donation the same numbering 200 were filed before the Assessing Officer. Receipts are enclosed at page no. 03 to 205 of the paper book. However, the filing or not filing

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

property discovered in the course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. In. all these cases no assessments were pending on the date of search for these assessment years. No assessments were abated in terms of second proviso to section 153A of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi High

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

property discovered in the course of search which was not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. In. all these cases no assessments were pending on the date of search for these assessment years. No assessments were abated in terms of second proviso to section 153A of the Act. Hon'ble Delhi High

SHRI M A KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) It(Ss)A Nos.37 To 42/Ind/2015 & Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2010-11 Late M.A. Khan Acit 3(1) (Through L/H Nazhat Bhopal Parveen Khan) बनाम/ B-90, Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan:Aewpk 3620 C Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Housing Board, Vs. Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN:AEWPK 3620 C Assessee by Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Shri Vijay Bansal, ARs Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 12.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by a consolidated appeal-order dated 28.11.2014 passed by learned Commissioner