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)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

SHANKAR SEWANI,NEW MARKET vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

house) for Rs.1,35,00,000/-. The assessee has submitted copy of registered deed of sale of property and purchase of property. The property was jointly purchased in FY 200-04 for a consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-. The reply of the AR has been considered. The assessee has duly offered the capital gain on the aforesaid property

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

property already took place on 07.01.2011. The seized document is entirely silent about the 9 IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma transaction whether it is a payment or receipt. The addition made by the A.O in respect of other notings in the seized document has been deleted by the CIT(A) in para No. 3.6.2 as under

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed a part of the project (178 units) but not entire project, it is not entitled to deduction. With such observations, the Ld. AO disallowed deduction

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed a part of the project (178 units) but not entire project, it is not entitled to deduction. With such observations, the Ld. AO disallowed deduction

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed a part of the project (178 units) but not entire project, it is not entitled to deduction. With such observations, the Ld. AO disallowed deduction

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed a part of the project (178 units) but not entire project, it is not entitled to deduction. With such observations, the Ld. AO disallowed deduction

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

block. Ld. AO further observed that the section 80-IB(10) allows deduction only if the entire housing project is completed within the specified time and since in the present-case, the assessee had completed a part of the project (178 units) but not entire project, it is not entitled to deduction. With such observations, the Ld. AO disallowed deduction

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

block assessment in case of M/s Nikita Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. which was also subject matter before the Pr. CIT and the disallowance made by the AO on account of depreciation was deleted. Therefore, the assesse as well as M/s. Nikita Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. have been assessed by the same AO and hence the identity and financial statements

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

house belongs to respective joint owner in the ratio in which contribution for buying the property was made. In case a person has not contributed anything for the property he does not have any beneficial ownership in the property even if he is added as the first joint owner in the purchase deed. So, while selling the joint property

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. LIFE STYLE INFRATECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Block No. F, G, H, I, J and Row Houses for which amounts had been received in Financial Year 2008-09 to 2012-13 relevant to AY 2009-10 to 2013-14 towards sale/allotment of flats/row houses of same sizes as mentioned in the seized-document. Based thereon, the AO inferred that the seized-document was a “Price-list” related

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible. The Ld. A.R. taken us to the section 271AAB of the Act and also section 158BFA(2) of the Act and argued that the words used in section 271AAB

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible. The Ld. A.R. taken us to the section 271AAB of the Act and also section 158BFA(2) of the Act and argued that the words used in section 271AAB

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible. The Ld. A.R. taken us to the section 271AAB of the Act and also section 158BFA(2) of the Act and argued that the words used in section 271AAB

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible. The Ld. A.R. taken us to the section 271AAB of the Act and also section 158BFA(2) of the Act and argued that the words used in section 271AAB

THE A C I T CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL vs. S V INFRA DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

block assessment under chapter XIV-B; further Tribunal was justified in deleting addition on account of jewellery having regard to CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dt. 11 may 1994”. •In the case Ashok Chaddhavs ITO (2011) 202 Taxman 395 it has been held that: "Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys - Assessment year 2006- 07 _ During a search

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

assessment years. 17. Brief facts relating to this issue are that the assessee developed the project namely “Palace Orchard” situated at Village Dhamkera Swadesh Developers Tehsil Huzur Kolar Road, Bhopal. This housing project is developed on 7.75 acres land. The permission for construction was granted on 11.11.2006 by Gram Panchayat, Damkheda Block Fanda, Bhopal. Completion of certificate was given

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

house Rs.\n60,00,000/- (Proportionate exemption claim Rs 35,17,111/-) without giving\nproper opportunity for production/verification of evidences, related therewith.\n\n4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was\nnot justified to confirm the addition made by Ld. AO by ignoring the claim for\nloss from business amounting