SHRI SANJAY DUBEY,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That the Ld. Lower authority has erred in holding the view that appellant is liable for capital gain tax on forcefully transfer of immovable property by the bank against the liability of third party which is upheld

ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL vs. M/S BALAJI FARMS AND REALITY , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed and assessee’s cross-

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2, M/S.Balaji Farms & बनाम/ Bhopal Reality, Vs. 158,3Rd Floor, Zone-Ii, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aalfb9630L) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 50C. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in issuing penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) when the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) has merged into reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) subsequently on the same issue for which the penalty has been

SHRI NARESH MODI (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI BASANTILAL MODI),INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

147 was framed vide order dated 21.03.2014. During the course of assessment no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the AO, on the basis of material available on record made addition of Rs.68,66,000/- by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act in respect of the sale value of the property of the assessee

SHRI RAGHVENDRA GOSWAMI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is disposed of in terms of indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10

50C from 01.10.2009 applied retrospectively to the transaction that took place in the assmt. Year 2008-09. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT() was not justified in directing the assessing officer to assess the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.61,53,470/- in the assemt. Year 2008-09 in place of Rs.22

INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1), BHOPAL, METRO WALK BUILDING vs. RAMESH KUMAR SAHU, LEGAL HEIR OF SMT. RAMPYARI BAI, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Officer 3(1), Ramesh Kumar Sahu बनाम/ Bhopal L/H Of Late Smt. Ram Vs. Pyari Bai, 127 New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Anhps5515N) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

2 of 17 Ramesh Kumar Sahu, L/H of Late Smt. Ram Pyari Bai ITA No.509/Ind/2023 - A.Y.2012-13 2.4 That further a notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 08.11.2019 with enclosure of notice u/s 148 dated: 26.03.2019 fixing the case for hearing on 21.11.2019 through speed as well as duly served

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s. 147 of the Act at Rs. 88,93,186/- as against the Returned Income of Rs. 8,95,170/- , thereby making additions of Rs.79,98,016/-, which is quite unjustified, unwarranted, excessive, arbitrary and bad- in-law. Jaya Juneja vs. ITO A.Y. 2015-16 7(i). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both

SHRI RAMESH MANGAL,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Pan : Abwpm2673E

2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual deriving rental and business income and declared total income of Rs.10,82,420/- in the return of income filed on 31.07.2010 for Assessment Year 2010-11. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the ground of non disclosure of short

SHRI IMRAN SHER KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WARD 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Imran Sherkhan Ito 15, Rait Ghat Ward-1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Dcxpk6781E

section 144/147. The reassessment completed on the basis of unserved notice u/s 148 and before 31.3.2013 is bad and unjust. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.10,65,000/- as unexplained investment, when the said amount was available with the assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.16

ROHIT KUMAR YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(5), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Kumar Yadav Ito 5(5) Hig-Dx-2Manishmati Arvind Indore Vihar, Mahishmati Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaupy5015 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

2 of 9 ITANo.442/Ind/2023 Rohit Kumar Yadav assessee however, the AO has also made an addition of the 50% shares of the mother of the assessee in the hands of the assesse on protective basis. Ld. AR has contended that no addition on substantive basis has been made in the hands of the mother of the assessee within the protective

SHRI PURSHOTTAM KHATRI , BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

50C and Rs.3,35,000/- as shown by the assesse without considering the explanation offered during appellate proceedings. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A() erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.130,493/- claimed u/s 48 of the Act being index cost of expenditure incurred for acquiring capital asset stating that