RAJARAM PATIDAR,BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(4), HOSHANGABAD ROAD

Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Rajaram Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.112, Near Ram Lila 2(4), Maidan, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Ward No. 52-53, Bhopal Vs. Misrod (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Bkapp7594R Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

long-term capital gain and (ii) Rs. 1,06,772/- on account of interest income, surviving even after ITAT’s order, should also be deleted on merit. 6. So far as the first part of assessee’s grievance is concerned, we agree that the penalty u/s 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DEVI SINGH, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Long term capital gain on the sold\nland amounting to Rs. 41411696 and has treated the same in his total\nincome for the year under consideration.\n6.4:- The appellant has strongly refuted the findings of the AO with\nregard to capital gain on agricultural land sold by him. During the\nappellate proceedings the appellate has furnished documentary\nevidence to support

SMT. KAVITA SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO-3(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, 112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Arcps6793D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

long term capital gain interest and other sources. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and levied

INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DEVI SINGH, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani

Long term capital gain on the sold land amounting to Rs. 41411696 and has treated the same in his total income for the year under consideration. 6.4:- The appellant has strongly refuted the findings of the AO with regard to capital gain on agricultural land sold by him. During the appellate proceedings the appellate has furnished documentary evidence to support

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 62,04,270/- made by the AO on concealment of long term capital gain

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 62,04,270/- made by the AO on concealment of long term capital gain

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

271(1)(c) of the 'Act' are\ninitiated separately. After rejection of claim LTCG as claimed by the assessee\nis being computed separately in forthcoming paras of the body of the\nassessment order.\nAddition - Rs.8,61,000/-.\n3. Computation of LTCG:\nDescription\nAmount\nComputation\nFull\nvalue of Consideration\n(sale\nRs.410000/-\nconsideration received in lieu of sale of land\nlocated

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

271(1) (c) of the IT are initiated separately for A.Ys 2015-16.” 24. It is pertinent to note that in the statement recorded u/s 134 of the Act and to answer the Question No.22, the assessee has stated that the details in this diary are related to election management activities as well as election management expenditure. The statement

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16 .08.2023

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c).” 7. The assessment order is completely silent on the issue of claim of improvement of cost though the notice u/s 142(1) was issued by the AO wherein the assesse was asked to furnish the information as per para 7 of the notice u/s 142(1) as under: Page 4 of 7 Santosh Agrawal

M/S SIDDHULA;L,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

Long-term capital gain 46,13,227 Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal but did succeed. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us on grounds mentioned earlier. Ground No. 1 to 3: 3. In these grounds, the assessee has challenged the capital gain assessed by AO at Rs. 46,13,227/-. Ld. AR for assessee made

SANDHYA GARG,JABALPUR vs. THE ITO,W-2(4), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisandhya Garg Ito War,2(4) 30, Subhash Grih Nirman Bhopal Society, Priydarshini Colony Vs. Jabalpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agtpg7994G Assessee By Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

long term capital gain at Rs.5,99,029/- against which an exemption u/s 54F was also allowed by the AO for the cost of plot of land purchased by the assessee of Rs.3,60,000/-. The AO has computed the proportionate exemption as the assessee has not invested the full amount of net consideration in purchase or construction

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

271(1)(c)of the Act, 1961, Since, the penalty is separate proceeding and penalty has not been levied in the case of the appellant, the ground taken by the appellant is pre-matured at this stage, therefore, need not to be adjudicated. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8.8 Ground no. 10 pertains to levy

KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Kishore Sewani, Ito-1(4) बनाम/ House No.33, Parika Bhopal Vs. Society, Phase-1, Chunabhatti, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Ankps8260M Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025

long-term capital gain computed at Rs. Nil from sale of an agricultural land situated at Gondermau, Bhopal for Rs. 1.25 crore after claiming deduction of cost of acquisition, transfer expenses and exemption u/s 54F on the basis of new investment in a property. The case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and the AO issued statutory notices

SEEMA LUNAWAT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated\nseparately for concealment of income\".\nDuring first-appeal, the CIT(A) has upheld AO's order.\nBefore us, Ld. AR for assessee has filed following Written-Submission,\niterated the contents of same during hearing and urged to delete the\naddition wrongly made by AO:\n\"WRITTEN SUBMISSION\nThe appellant respectfully submits

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

long-term capital gain of Rs. 36,37,171/- chargeable in the hands of assessee. After selling impugned property, the assessee purchased two residential properties, namely Ruby Vila No. 4 for Rs. 31,64,050/- (1/3rd of 94,92,150/-) and Ruby Villa No. 6 for Rs. 35,78,150/- and on the strength of investment, the assessee claimed exemption

KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes

long-term\ncapital gain computed at Rs. Nil from sale of an agricultural land situated\nat Gondermau, Bhopal for Rs.1.25 crore after claiming deduction of cost of\nacquisition, transfer expenses and exemption u/s 54F on the basis of new\ninvestment in a property. The case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nassessment and the AO issued statutory notices u/s

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey