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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 275(1)(c). Then, in Ram Kishan Verma (supra), the Jaipur Bench of ITAT has accepted that the starting point would be the date on which the AO received information from DDIT about commitment of default by assessee. We may gainfully refer a recent decision of ITAT, Chennai in DCIT, Central Circle, 2(2), Chennai Vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

M/S TRUBA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

275 / (2013) 40 taxmann.com 250 (Mad).” 15. Ld. AR next submitted that he would also like to address one more point adopted by Ld. PCIT(Central) for cancellation of registration. He submitted that the Ld. PCIT(Central) has alleged violation of section 13(3) by assessee [on account of payments made to or for the benefit of interested persons

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

275 of the IT Act whereas the penalty under section 271AAB has to be imposed only when the income disclosed by the assessee falls in the ambit of undisclosed income as defined under section 271AAB of the Act. The definition of undisclosed income contemplates various forms and the primary condition is that the income of the specified previous year represented

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

275/[2013] 40 taxmann.com 250 (Mad.) 12. Therefore, in view of our aforesaid discussion, on the preliminary point itself, we find that the impugned order of the Commissioner cancelling the registration u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act is bereft of a valid jurisdiction. (iii)The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Islamic Academic of Education

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

275/[2013] 40 taxmann.com 250 (Mad.) 12. Therefore, in view of our aforesaid discussion, on the preliminary point itself, we find that the impugned order of the Commissioner cancelling the registration u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act is bereft of a valid jurisdiction. (iii)The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Islamic Academic of Education

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

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

Capital Gain at Rs. 13,21,51,725/- (Market value of Plot As per Section 50C of the Act at Rs. 16,17,50,000/- less cost of acquisition of Rs. 2,95,98,275/-) was made to the income declared by the assessee. Ld. A.O also did not give credit to the tax paid by the assessee

M/S ASHOKA HI-TECH BUILDERS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

capital assets and not stock in trade. In the instant case the assessee has reflected the land as stock in trade and therefore the provision of sub section are not applicable to it. vii) As regards the assessee argument that it has been recognising the revenue on the same line from years to years, it will be sufficient to state

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

capital expenditure in the form of club house is not allowable. AO has also reproduced relevant page of sale deed of plot of land at page no. 10 of the assessment order which clearly specifies that the buyers of plot in the said project will not have ownership right over the club house. 8. In view of the above discussion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

capital expenditure in the form of club house is not allowable. AO has also reproduced relevant page of sale deed of plot of land at page no. 10 of the assessment order which clearly specifies that the buyers of plot in the said project will not have ownership right over the club house. 8. In view of the above discussion

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

capital gains on the sale of agricultural land at Rao is exempt u/s. 54B. If the said ground is allowed, the addition, if any would be neutralized. f. Ld AO in the remand proceedings has accepted this fact at CIT(A) pg. 18 para 3, which is quoted as under: “Assessee has submitted copies of sale deed of land

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

capital gains on the sale of agricultural land at Rao is exempt u/s. 54B. If the said ground is allowed, the addition, if any would be neutralized. f. Ld AO in the remand proceedings has accepted this fact at CIT(A) pg. 18 para 3, which is quoted as under: “Assessee has submitted copies of sale deed of land

SATPAL SINGH,INDORE vs. ITO-1(4), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1(4) 275, Niranjanpur, Indore, Indore Madhya Pradesh - 452001 PAN No. DAOPS6138E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Pankaj Shah, A.R. Appellant by : Respondent by : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing 16.09.2022 (in ITA Nos. 529 & 541/Ind/2019) & 27.09.2022 (in ITA Nos. 542 & 543/Ind/2019) Date of Pronouncement 11 .10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant four appeals

BHARAT SINGH,INDORE vs. ITO-1(4), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1(4) 275, Niranjanpur, Indore, Indore Madhya Pradesh - 452001 PAN No. DAOPS6138E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Pankaj Shah, A.R. Appellant by : Respondent by : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing 16.09.2022 (in ITA Nos. 529 & 541/Ind/2019) & 27.09.2022 (in ITA Nos. 542 & 543/Ind/2019) Date of Pronouncement 11 .10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant four appeals

LATE JWALA SINGH TH. L/H. SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH,INDORE vs. ITO-1(4), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1(4) 275, Niranjanpur, Indore, Indore Madhya Pradesh - 452001 PAN No. DAOPS6138E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Pankaj Shah, A.R. Appellant by : Respondent by : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing 16.09.2022 (in ITA Nos. 529 & 541/Ind/2019) & 27.09.2022 (in ITA Nos. 542 & 543/Ind/2019) Date of Pronouncement 11 .10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant four appeals

LAKHAN SINGH,INDORE vs. ITO-1(4), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1(4) 275, Niranjanpur, Indore, Indore Madhya Pradesh - 452001 PAN No. DAOPS6138E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Pankaj Shah, A.R. Appellant by : Respondent by : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing 16.09.2022 (in ITA Nos. 529 & 541/Ind/2019) & 27.09.2022 (in ITA Nos. 542 & 543/Ind/2019) Date of Pronouncement 11 .10.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant four appeals

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

1,17,16,400/- on account of disallowance of Section 54F, Rs. l1.11lakhs on account of 50 C and Rs. 28.73 on account of section 68 as per his predessor's order in Appeal nO.IT /783/11-12 dated 28.02.2014, against which the Appellant's appeal bearing No. ITA/379/IND/2014 is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.On the Facts and circumstances

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

1,17,16,400/- on account of disallowance of Section 54F, Rs. l1.11lakhs on account of 50 C and Rs. 28.73 on account of section 68 as per his predessor's order in Appeal nO.IT /783/11-12 dated 28.02.2014, against which the Appellant's appeal bearing No. ITA/379/IND/2014 is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.On the Facts and circumstances

M/S INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. THE DCIT, 5(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2011-12 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit- Indore Development Authority, बनाम/ (Exemption) Ida Building,7, Race Course Vs. Road, Indore Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaji0103J Assessment Years: 2012-13 Indore Development Authority, Dcit-5(1) बनाम/ Ida Building,7, Race Course Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue)

gains of business and profession. In the given facts, it would be incongruous for the Revenue to urge that the purpose and goal behind the activities undertaken by the respondent-assessee was not commercial but charity as the intent and motive behind them was not to earn profit. The expenditure incurred to carry out social and economic development would