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

53A of the Transfer of Property Act:- i) CIT V. Balbir Singh Maini 389 ITR 531 (SC) (B) When possession in transferred and part performance (Substantial payment) is made, then only transfer is considered as per Section 2(47)(v):- (i) Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia V. CIT 260 ITR 9 (ii) CIT V. Cochin Stock Exchange

M/S BALAJEE STERLING BUILDER,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both of the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, the appellant firm was clearly the owner of the land. Hence the assessing officer erred in her belief that the appellant firm was not the owner of the land. (Copy of the agreement dated 30.11.2006 is enclosed as Annexure 1). Be that as it may, it is submitted that the provisions of section

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

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or” 17. The AO issued a notice u/s 142(1) dated 03.12.2019 with Annexure which reads as under: ANNEXURE Assessment Proceedings in your case is pending for AY 2012-13. In this regard, you are requested to comply to the following points: Please furnish complete computation of Long Term

M/S. VAISHALI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(2), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowance made under section 80IB (10) of the Act. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted the land admeasuring 6.024 hectares has been purchased and registered in the name of the assessee. NOC for mortgaged of land, release of land and the assessee obtained permission for development / approval of colony from Gram Panchayat obtained in the name

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

disallowed Rs. 23,00,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. Assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition examing the facts in the light of judicial pronouncements. 22. Now, the revenue is in appeal against this order. Learned Department Representative submitted that there was clear-cut evidence

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

disallowed Rs. 23,00,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 21. Assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition examing the facts in the light of judicial pronouncements. 22. Now, the revenue is in appeal against this order. Learned Department Representative submitted that there was clear-cut evidence

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assesse is disposed off in terms of

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

disallowed qua three projects undertaken by assessee, namely “D.K. Honey Homes”, “D.K. Devasthali" and "D.K. Cottage” for certain reasons as narrated in assessment-order. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first-appeals to CIT(A) and succeeded. Now, the revenue has come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of first-appeal passed by CIT(A). 4. Originally, the revenue/appellant filed

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

53A of the Transfer of Property act. It is also admitted fact that the appellant had not got any document registered for the sale of a residential unit. Thus, the appellant had not earned income on account of sale of residential unit as envisaged in section 801B(10) because the Page 8 of 14 ITANo.328/Ind/2023 Ram Babu Singh appellant after

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowed but in no case, the same is taxable u/s 23 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also used its building premises for running of the coaching classes. The assessee had claimed depreciation on the building which was used by it for the purpose of its business and also leased out as per term agreed by the assessee company

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowed but in no case, the same is taxable u/s 23 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also used its building premises for running of the coaching classes. The assessee had claimed depreciation on the building which was used by it for the purpose of its business and also leased out as per term agreed by the assessee company

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowed but in no case, the same is taxable u/s 23 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also used its building premises for running of the coaching classes. The assessee had claimed depreciation on the building which was used by it for the purpose of its business and also leased out as per term agreed by the assessee company

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowed but in no case, the same is taxable u/s 23 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also used its building premises for running of the coaching classes. The assessee had claimed depreciation on the building which was used by it for the purpose of its business and also leased out as per term agreed by the assessee company

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowed but in no case, the same is taxable u/s 23 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also used its building premises for running of the coaching classes. The assessee had claimed depreciation on the building which was used by it for the purpose of its business and also leased out as per term agreed by the assessee company

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

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

disallowed qua three projects undertaken by assessee, namely “D.K. Honey Homes”, “D.K. Devasthali” and “D.K. Cottage” for certain reasons as narrated in assessment-order. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first-appeals to CIT(A) and succeeded. Now, the revenue has come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of first-appeal passed by CIT(A). 4. Originally, the revenue/appellant filed

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

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

disallowed qua three projects undertaken by assessee, namely “D.K. Honey Homes”, “D.K. Devasthali” and “D.K. Cottage” for certain reasons as narrated in assessment-order. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first-appeals to CIT(A) and succeeded. Now, the revenue has come in these appeals before us assailing the orders of first-appeal passed by CIT(A). 4. Originally, the revenue/appellant filed