SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

section 54(2) of the Act……” [emphasis supplied] In the instant case, the investment made by assessee of Rs. 11,79,768 towards installation of household items like Air Conditioner, Sofa sets, etc forms an integral part of the new residential house so as to put it in a habitable condition. This cost incurred is an integral part of cost

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

property shall be purchased in the name of the assessee; it merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed "a residential house". 8. This court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section

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

section 54F was claimed on account of investment in capital gain account and partly in construction of a new house. 4.2 ·You have, claimed that transfer of the said property took place during the AY 2014-15., however while determining sale consideration, you have adopted the value of sale agreement (l.e. Rs.97,65,0001-.) which was entered into during

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

3), show cause notice issued by the ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act as well as the impugned order passed under section 263. It is manifest from the record that the case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny as per the notice issued under section 143(2) dated 19.09.2016, the relevant part of the said

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

3. CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (2012) 342 ITR 38 (Delhi) 4. DIT Vs. Jennifer Bhide (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 82 (Kar.) 5. Rajaram Patidar Vs. ITO 1(2) Bhopal in ITA No.371/Ind/2015 dated 28.9.2018. 14. The reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal rendered in ITA No.371/Ind/2018 in the case of Shri Raja Ram Patidar Vs. ITO dated

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

3), show cause notice issued by the ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act as well as the impugned order passed under section 263. It is manifest from the record that the case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny as per the notice issued under section 143(2) dated 19.09.2016, the relevant part of the said

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

3,46,640. In the Return of Income, the assessee claimed deduction Under Section 54F of the Act. The claim of the deduction Under Section 54F was denied by the Assessing Officer on the reason that the assessee has not deposited the net sale consideration in Capital Gain Scheme Account which is a clear violation provisions of Section 54F

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

3), show cause notice issued by the ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act as well as the impugned order passed under section 263. It is manifest from the record that the case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny as per the notice issued under section 143(2) dated 19.09.2016, the relevant part of the said

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

3) Indore/ I.T.A. No. 409&410/Ind/2014/A.Y.08-09 Page 12 of 26 construction is to be preferred as against a literal construction, more so when even applying the literal construction, there is nothing in the section to show that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. As a matter of fact, Section 54F in terms does

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

house. Thereafter, the assessee offered re-taxable capital gain on account of non-utilisation of part of the amount deposited in CGDS A/c in subsequent AY 2018-19 on expiry of 3 years’ period in terms of Proviso to section 54F(4), the 3 years’ period from date of transfer expired on 12.03.2018 (Date of transfer was 13.03.2015 + 3 years

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 14 of the Act, any income chargeable to tax has to be classified under the five heads viz. income from salaries, income from house property, income from profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Further, u/s. 56(1) of the Act, any income shall be chargeable to income from other sources only

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

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

house Taxable capital gain 1,86,107 32,32,461 Page 3 of 11 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(4), Bhopal ITA No. 208/Ind/2022 – AY 2009-10 Aggrieved, the assessee carried mater in first appeal but did not get any relief. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. Ld. AR for assessee drew

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHUORSIYA,RAJGARH vs. THE PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

property reported in ITR The case of the appellant was subsequently converted into complete scrutiny vide approval letter dated 06-12-2016 from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ujjain. Consequently an assessment order dated 28-12- 2016 was passed under section 143[3] of the Act assessing the total income of the appellant

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

houses as such the assessee is not eligible for deduction as per proviso (a)(i) of section 54F(1) of the Act.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an Individual and derives income from civil contractorship, income from long term capital gain and agricultural income. The return of income DCIT vs. Anil Jhalani ITA No.246/Ind/2015 & CO36/Ind/2015

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

3) vide order dated 29.07.2016 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the PCIT, Ujjain passed revision-order dated 25.02.2019 u/s 263 wherein the assessment-order was set aside and the AO was directed to re-examine the claim of exemption u/s 54F. Pursuant to such revision-order, the AO passed a newer assessment-order dated 27.08.2019 u/s 144 read with section

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.

54F is allowable for investment of capital gain in purchase /construction of residential house property and not allowable for investment in Plot. Therefore, total under assessment of income is Rs. 1,77,21,919/- (Rs. 91,35,500/- and Rs. 85,86,419/-). 3.3 Thus, during the course of assessment proceedings, you have neither furnished any details nor explained

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

54F. Thus, the AO has wrongly allowed exemption. (ii) The assessee was owner of more than one properties, still not declared notional income taxable under “Income from house property” from properties other than self-occupied and actually let out. This has resulted in under-assessment of taxable income. 4. By the aforesaid show-cause notice, the assessee was asked