THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

term and exemption u/s 54F is not allowable & (ii) The reopening was valid. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of Ld.A.O. 7. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as per Section 2 (47)(v) of the IT Act "Any transaction involving the allowing of the possession

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

u/s 50C at Rs.35,78,000/- and computed short term capital gain at Rs. 8,52,632/-. The 1/2 share of short term capital Page 3 of 9 ITANo.442/Ind/2023 Rohit Kumar Yadav gain amounting to Rs.4,26,316/- was added to the income of the assessee on substantive basis and equal amount was also added on protective basis subject

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

147 of the Income Tax Act Shri Rajul Bhargava, Indore & otr. 1961(In short the ‘Act’) both dated 29.09.2017 framed by ACIT Central Circle 1, Indore. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA 26/Ind/2019 in Rajul Bhargava for AY 2013-14: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

147 of the Income Tax Act Shri Rajul Bhargava, Indore & otr. 1961(In short the ‘Act’) both dated 29.09.2017 framed by ACIT Central Circle 1, Indore. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA 26/Ind/2019 in Rajul Bhargava for AY 2013-14: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

short Pr. CIT) Indore passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. There is a delay of 199 days in filing the present appeal. The assesse filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the impugned order

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

short the ‘Act’) dated 13.12.2017 framed by ITO -5(5), Indore. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; Shri Sarwar Mohd. Khan 1. That the learned CIT (A) erred in' rejecting the claim of the assessee regarding wrong reopening of the case u/s 148. The reopening so made being illegal and wrong, the order so passed requires

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 (1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJEEV PATNI, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

Short Term Capital Gains without offering any opportunity to assessing officer and relying only on computation given by assessee for holding period. 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case} Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,64,64,619/- based on credits in bank accounts to Rs. 4,05,223/- only

SHRI SANJEEV PATNI,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

Short Term Capital Gains without offering any opportunity to assessing officer and relying only on computation given by assessee for holding period. 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case} Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,64,64,619/- based on credits in bank accounts to Rs. 4,05,223/- only

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

reassess the same. However, if the assessment for any of the assessment years falling within 6 years has attained finally and not pending on the date of search then the same cannot be subjected to tax in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material gathered in the course of search and seizure operation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

reassessment framed by the AO u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) without a valid notice u/s 143(2) is not valid and liable to be quashed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362. 7. The next objection of the assessee is against the validity of the order passed

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

reassessment was framed u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) on 28.09.2017 accepting the return of income at Rs.6,50,640/-. Thereafter on perusal of the assessment record the Pr. CIT noted that the assesse has sold the property held jointly with Smt. Sheela Devi Agarwal and Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal on 18.01.2020 for a sum of Rs.1

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

short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 17.09.2024 passed for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in passing the ex-parte order without giving proper and effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant inasmuch none of the notices claimed

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

short ‘CIT’), dated 16.11.2015 for the A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT() was not justified in upholding that the order u/s. 143(3)/147 passed by the assessing officer was not illegal, invalid and untenable in law. RaghvendraGoswami

LATE SMT SUSHILA BISARYA, BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D 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

Capital Gain calculated by the assessee. Also no query was raised by the AO with regard to documentary evidence regarding cost of construction incurred by the assessee nor the same was furnished by the assessee during assessment." 8. It is pertinent to note that when the AO while passing the reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) on 31st July

LILA VERMA,MALAKHEDI ROAD vs. ACIT/DCIT ITARSI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN ITARSI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2012-13 Lila Verma Acit/Dcit Rewa Bhagwati Nagar

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, the assessee’s total income exigible to tax was computed & assessed at Rs.67,82,660/-. 2.2 The assessee is an individual & partner in M/s Vadik Associated & M/s Nand Vihar Developers. That the assessee derives remuneration & interest from these firms. The assessee had filed return of income for the A.Y.2012-13 on 28.03.2013 declaring total income

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

147 of the Act. Page 4 of 15 Globus Housing ITA. No.872/Ind/2024 – A.Y. 2014-15 Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 08.05.2020 and served through ITBA on the e-mail of the assessee. 2.6 That subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 13.01.2022. That during the course of reassessment

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

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

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 by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary erroneous and unjustified

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

In the result, the appeal of assesse in ITANo

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

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 by the ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary erroneous and unjustified