DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

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

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

2: 14. In this Ground, the issue involved is the addition of Rs. 68,79,170/- made by Ld. AO by way of short-term capital gain by invoking section 50C

SMT. CHANDRAVATI KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

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

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

50C. Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the “stamp valuation authority”) for the purpose of payment

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAITHWAS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

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

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

50C. Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the “stamp valuation authority”) for the purpose of payment

SMT NAYANA JAYESH PATEL ,INDORE vs. ACIT ( OSD ) , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninayana Jayesh Patel Pr. Cit 29/5, South Tukoganj Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afypp 2075H Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02 .08.2023

section 50C(1) if there is a prior registered agreement for the transfer of the capital asset the value adopted or assessment by the stamp value authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computation full value of consideration of such transfer. However the stamp duty value as on the date of registered agreement

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

68 - He thus passed a revisional order setting aside assessment - Tribunal noted that Assessing Officer had made detailed enquiries about aforesaid aspect and mere fact that he did not make any reference to said issue in assessment order, could not make said order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenues - Accordingly, Tribunal set aside revisional order - Whether finding recorded

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE LTD., DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

M/S. BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

M/S BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

2,40,000) is hereby confirmed as appellant failed to furnish any evidence to prove that amount was refunded to them and no confirmation in respect of these amounts were furnished by the appellant. Bhoomiyaji Land & Finance 18. We further observe that the assessee showed advances against plot and building booking as on 31.03.2007 at Rs.30240550/-. Letters were issued

M/S. MANISH FILMS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

68 SOT 0110 (Pune). Ld. Counsel submitted that in the light of these decisions, the assessing officer ought not to have invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act. 4. On the contrary, Ld. D.R. opposed both the submissions of the assessee and supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the contention of [ITA 152/Ind/2015

SHRI NARENDRA TRIPATHI,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

Section 50C of the Act in the respective hands. In this given facts and circumstances of the case and considering the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that there is no material evidence against the assessee which could prove that an unexplained investment in the shape of ‘on money’ was ever

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

2). Accordingly a\nnotice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act was issued to the assessee on 18.12.2000 requiring to furnish or cause to be furnished certain documents/details specified therein. The assssseee did not make any response to the said notice. Therefore another letter was issued to assessee on 06.01.2021 requesting to submit the detalls called for in the notice

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 50C of the Act. 33 Mohanlal Chugh & others Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We find ourselves in full agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 50C of the Act. 33 Mohanlal Chugh & others Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We find ourselves in full agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 50C of the Act. 33 Mohanlal Chugh & others Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We find ourselves in full agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action