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

set off of losses, expenditure, deduction etc are allowable. I find that the stand taken by the Ld AO was as per the decision of Hon'ble, Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs CIT [2001] 247 ITR 290 (Gujarat) has held that scheme of sections 69, 69A and 69C shows that where nature

SANDEEP KUMAR MUNDRA ,BURHANPUR vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Mundra, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ S.K. Enterprises, Burhanpur Vs. Kalabagh Emagrid, Burhanpur (Pan:Abtpm8551C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manoj Phadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

loss on house property. The assessee has two properties out of which one is let out property. The Ld. AR thereafter contended that the “impugned order” is an ex-parte order. That the Ld. CIT(A) had fixed three hearings in the matter. In hearing fixed on 29.01.2021 vide notice dated 19.01.2021 the assessee had sought adjournment and that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

set of documents as submitted by the assessee before us it appears that on 19.09.2017, the ITO issued the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act; the same is appearing at Page Nos. 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

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

set of documents as submitted by the assessee before us it appears that on 19.09.2017, the ITO issued the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act; the same is appearing at Page Nos. 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

SHRI VINAYAK KALANI,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Vinayak Kalani, Dy. Cit, 6Th Floor, 1(1), Treasure Island, Indore. बनाम/ 11, Tukoganju Main Road, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Atgpk8379P Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024

house-property of Rs. 30,000/-, loss from other sources of Rs. 37,41,259/- and deductions under Chapter VI-A of Rs. 1,61,568/-. The assessee declared loss of Rs. 37,41,259/- from other sources as under: “Income from Other sources (Chapter IV F): Interest from Saving Bank A/c 1,20,315 Interest Item

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. 21. Ld. DR failed to controvert this fact that all these details were very much available before the assessing officer for examination and Shaligram Borad are forming part of the assessment records. Based on these evidences the income disclosed under the head of long term capital gain from sale of plot of land was examined by the assessing officer

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

loss disallowed (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

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

loss disallowed (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

SANATAN WAREHOUSE,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2022-23 Sanatan Warehouse, Cit(A) 162, Modi Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Zone-Ii, Mp Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aegfs0245D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2025

setting aside the impugned order treating the return as invalid, and requests the Tribunal to direct the Learned Assessing Officer/CPC to accept the return as valid and process the same under the applicable provisions of the law.” 2. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and perused the case record carefully. 3. Ld. AR for assessee briefed the facts

SHRI LAV NARANG,UJJAIN vs. PCIT,, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

loss of Rs.1,81,455/-, we find that the ld. Assessing Officer firstly raised quarry about the details of immovable property purchased during the year in point no.8 of the questionnaire issued u/s 142(1) of the Act to which assessee did not reply in its first reply. Thereafter in the second reply assessee has given some brief details about

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

loss or disadvantage by stating\nthe full price of Rs.5,00,000 in the sale deed. The understatement of the sale\nprice in the sale deed could have been done at the instance of the buyer and,\ntherefore, the testimony of the buyer should not be given any credence.\n5.\nOn the basis of the above circumstances, it was submitted

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.

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 the issues involved with relevant documentary evidence with regard to issues narrated above

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 and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

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 and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

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 and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

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 and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

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 and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

house property, profit and gains of business or profession or capital gains nor the income from other sources. 4.3 In view of the above, contentions of the assessee are not found tenable and therefore, amount of Rs. 58,78,145/- in form of excess stock, Rs. 52,86,831/-in form of sales and not recorded in its regular books