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

house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT V~. Natrajan, (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad), though this case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, the said Section is pari materia of Section 54F(l) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

property i.e. plot and had also given vacant possession of the same to the customer as mentioned in sale-deed registered. Thereafter, the appellant had acted only as a contractor for the work of construction of the residential units. Thus, the appellant was not eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB(10). In this regard, reference can be made

NEERA KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

50,020/- from relinquishment of right; claimed exemption u/s 54F of Rs. 52,53,008/- on the basis of new investment in a residential house; and thereby declared taxable gain of Rs. 20,97,012/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny-assessment and the Ld. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3). Subsequently,the Ld. PCIT examined the record

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

50 to 53 of the Paper Book filed before us. It appears that the limited scrutiny was for ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani] Asst.Year.– 2016-17 - 6 - examination of the issue as to whether the deduction from capital gains has been claimed correctly. The said notice dated 19.09.2017 is reproduced hereinbelow: ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

50 to 53 of the Paper Book filed before us. It appears that the limited scrutiny was for ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani] Asst.Year.– 2016-17 - 6 - examination of the issue as to whether the deduction from capital gains has been claimed correctly. The said notice dated 19.09.2017 is reproduced hereinbelow: ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. ITO, 4(3), BHOPAL, OFFICE OF ITO BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Property Tax receipts for A.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and\n2018-19 (PB 120-123)\nc. An application in this regard is pressed before your honours. It is\ntherefore prayed that the additional evidences which are clinching\nevidences; and supporting the stand of the assessee that a\nresidential house was let out may kindly be taken on record

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

house may not be given on this land. So, he verbally\nconveyed the assessee that he shall only pay the consideration of the\nHarpreet Kaur\nITA No. 730/Ind/2024 – AY 2009-10\nsaid land as much value as would be adopted by the State\ngovernment authority at the time of making registry and accordingly\non 05/02/2009 he paid the consideration

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. 36,50,051/- Amount deposited in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme u/s 54 Rs. 62,00,000/- Page 10 of 12 Dilip Chandrasenrao Mahadik Assessment year 2015-16 On comparison of these three workings given by assessee, we find substantial mis-matches and variations. To illustrate, in (ii) above, the assessee has claimed ‘transfer expenses

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

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

house. The ld. AR further submitted that the investment of net sale consideration in new residential property within a period of three years from the date of sale of the property is important rather than keeping the net sale consideration in separate Capital Gain Scheme Account as notified by the Central Government. For this purpose he relied on the following

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

50,17,438/- was claimed under the head electricity expenses however no such expense was claimed during the previous year, Rs. 10,32,070/- was claimed as freight expenses which is almost five times of the amount which was claimed during the preceding year, Rs. 2,63,53,247/- was claimed as Food & Refreshment expenses which is four times

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

50,000 in aggregate, made to contractors/sub-contractors whose TDS is made uls 194C of the Act in the following format: a. Name, PAN, e-mail ID and current address of the person b. Total payment made during relevant financial year c. Total amount of TDS made d. Total payment made during one year prior to relevant financial year e. Total

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

50,88,182/-. The Pr. CIT after considering replied of the assesse held that the AO has totally failed to conduct proper inquiry and thorough examination of the cash book with the corresponding entries of the bank account of the assesse and accordingly the order of the AO was held to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Property Act for the simple reason that the said\ndocument, having being executed after 24.09.2001 was not registered under the\nRegistration Act, 1908. The appellant had already transferred the immovable\nproperty i.e. plot and had also given vacant possession of the same to the\ncustomer as mentioned in sale-deed registered. Thereafter, the appellant had\nacted only as a contractor

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

50 lakhs which is not disputed by the appellant. The dispute is about the deduction u/s 54F. As per the AO entire sale consideration is not invested in capital gain account and the investment is not made within 2 years from the date of transfer of the original asset. I find that as per the provisions of section

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

50 taxmann.com 111 Pune which has very similar facts. The operative portion of the order is reproduced below: “next issue is with regard to non-completion of housing project. The Assessing Officer stated that the assessee has commenced the construction of third building in the year 2010- 11 and it clearly shows that the assessee has not completed the housing