JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

capital gain so derived. Therefore, both the\nsections cannot be interpreted in same manner.\nWhereas Bombay High court final verdict is concerned, at para 13 of the order\nthe court clearly concludes its decision for the computation of exemption under\nsection 54EC and it is totally distinguishable with the facts of our case which we\nare dealing with meaning given

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

capital gain 44,81,373 5 Addition of amounts paid by WCS 35,50,000 6 Disallowance u/s 40A(3) 14,34,307 Assessed income 8,42,92,165 4. Aggrieved by the additions/disallowances made by AO, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Now, the revenue has come in this appeal on various grounds assailing

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

section 158BC in the case of 'R' did not survive at all since it had been struck down being time barred. The additions made on substantive basis had not been decided by deleting the same from assessee's individual hands rather they were thrown along with the block assessment order, meaning thereby, there was no substantive addition in existence

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

gain assessed by AO at Rs. 46,13,227/-. Ld. AR for assessee made certain Page 2 of 14 M/s.Siddhulal Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(2), Bhopal ITA No. 110/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12 specific pleadings qua these grounds and we confine our adjudication to the pleadings made before us and argued by both sides. Ld. AR pointed out that

GENDALAL JADHAV,INDORE vs. ITO-1(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigendalal Jadhav, Ito 1(1) 168-G Palakhedi, Gandhi Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Nagar Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aphpj4675K Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2024 O R D E R

gain. However, the AO disallowed the said claim of deduction on the ground that the assessee has not produced any supporting evidence despite sufficient opportunity is given. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has reiterated its claim but could not succeed. The CIT(A) has upheld the action of the AO on the ground that the assessee

NEERA KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

192, Prabhu Nagar, Bhopal बनाम/ Idgah Hills, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN:AGMPK 6962 H Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 12.12.2022 / 13.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 28.03.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by revision-order dated 09.12.2019passed

M/S SWADESH DEVLOPERS AND BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

Capital Gain at Rs. 1,82,94,410/- but the ld. AO was of the view that the assessee being engaged in the real estate business, such income from sale of land needs to be taxed as business income and accordingly treated the income of the assessee as business income and calculated tax accordingly. Income of the assessee

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

192.\n2844865\nPayment to Contractors u/s 194C\n622392\nCooperative Educator Exp.\n6484695661\n(Less: cooperative Educator Expenses\nFalling below the threshold exemption\nLimit u/s 194H on which TDS was\nNot deductable\n466918841\n6017777180\nOffice rent and utility charges.\n38400000\nProfessional charges.\n5266086\n6064910523\n30% of the expenses of Rs.6064910523\nDisallowable u/s 40(a)(ia)\nNet loss returned\n1819473157

M/S SHISHUKUNJ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,THE SHISHUKUNJ INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, GRAM JHALARIA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX. AAYKAR BHAWAN,

capital expenditure which otherwise is not an allowable\nexpenditure would be considered as application in the event of an assessee\ntrust enjoying the benefits of the registration. Under the circumstances, the law\nthat should apply is with reference to the year of default. He submitted that\nthe Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) should have acted

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

gainfully refer a recent decision of ITAT, Chennai in DCIT, Central Circle, 2(2), Chennai Vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai, ITA 785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 & C.O. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023, dated 13.03.2024 wherein an identical issue has been decided. The relevant paras of order are reproduced below: Page 19 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

gainfully refer a recent decision of ITAT, Chennai in DCIT, Central Circle, 2(2), Chennai Vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai, ITA 785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 & C.O. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023, dated 13.03.2024 wherein an identical issue has been decided. The relevant paras of order are reproduced below: Page 19 of 24 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188 to 190/Ind/2024

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

gainfully refer a recent decision of ITAT, Chennai in DCIT, Central Circle, 2(2), Chennai Vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai, ITA 785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 & C.O. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023, dated 13.03.2024 wherein an identical Page 16 of 33 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 issue has been decided. The relevant paras of order are re-produced below