SARWAR MOHD. KHAN,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground itself

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1(c) for concealment of income was also initiated. The case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice assessee filed return declaring the same income as 2 Shri Sarwar Mohd. Khan was declared in the original return of income. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

54F , (ii) Whether the amount paid to the contractor/builder was utilization of sale proceeds (iii) Whether capital gains were assessable in a.y. 2009-1O'or 2012-13. (iv) Whether the CIT(A) was right in enhancing the income u/s. 251(2). (v) Applicability of Sex. 50 to sale of leasehold property. (vi) Cash deposited in bank a/c total

SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeal of assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Borad

54F , (ii) Whether the amount paid to the contractor/builder was utilization of sale proceeds (iii) Whether capital gains were assessable in a.y. 2009-1O'or 2012-13. (iv) Whether the CIT(A) was right in enhancing the income u/s. 251(2). (v) Applicability of Sex. 50 to sale of leasehold property. (vi) Cash deposited in bank a/c total

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which is dependent on\noutcome of Quantum-Appeal. Since we have already remanded Quantum-\nAppeal to CIT(A), this matter is also remanded to CIT(A) for adjudication\nafresh after considering outcome of Quantum-Appeal and also considering\nsubmissions of assessee.\n10.\nResultantly, both of these appeals are allowed for statistical\npurposes.\nOrder pronounced

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

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 u/s 143(2)/142(1) which were complied by assessee. Ultimately, the AO passed assessment-order determining total income at Rs. 1,08,12,716/- after making these additions, namely (i) short-term capital

GANPAT SINGH,PIPLANI vs. ITO 3(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Ganpat Singh Ito 3(1) बनाम/ House No.67, Bhopal Vs. Khajuri Kalan, Piplani-B Sector, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Cuhps9954G Assessee By Ms. Saniya Farhaz Menon, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

271(1)(c) through notice dated 13.12.2017 for imposition of penalty qua the income of 45,28,000/- assessed and ultimately imposed a penalty of Rs. 9,00,000/- vide penalty-order dated 14.06.2018. Aggrieved by both orders of AO, the assessee carried matters in two separate appeals before CIT(A), one against assessment-order and Page

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

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

54F, 54G, 54H) be charged to income tax under the head Capital gain and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place." 10.8 In the present case during the period under consideration, the appellant neither received the full consideration of land nor handed over the actual physical possession of the same

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

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

54F, 54G, 54H) be charged to income tax under the head Capital gain and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place." 10.8 In the present case during the period under consideration, the appellant neither received the full consideration of land nor handed over the actual physical possession of the same

THE ITO, 2(5), INDORE vs. LATE SHRI RAM PRASAD BANGLEWALA L/H SHRI MAHESH BANGLEWALA, INDORE

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No.40/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Late Shri Ram Prasad Banglewala L/H Shri 2(5), Mahesh Banglewala, Indore. 930, Bijalpur, Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Awqpb0658P

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are also initiated as the appellant has concealed the above income. 7.1. As regards the addition of Rs. 17811136/- the AO computed the LTCG on sale of land and did not consider the claim of the appellant vi] s 54B of The Act though the claim vi] s 54F has been