THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

property, it is possible to say on which side the operations fall and to what head the income is to be assigned." After applying the aforesaid principle to the facts, which were there before the Court, it came to the conclusion that income had to be treated as income from business and not as income from house

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

property, it is possible to say on which side the operations fall and to what head the income is to be assigned." After applying the aforesaid principle to the facts, which were there before the Court, it came to the conclusion that income had to be treated as income from business and not as income from house

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

business income u/s 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The income if any generated towards letting out the property, can be treated as income from house

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business. Some immoveable property which remains unsold are part of the closing stock. As these properties could not be sold the assessee leased them for earning rental income to various consultants. The rental income received at Rs.26,87,635/-has been shown under the head income from house

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business. Some immoveable property which remains unsold are part of the closing stock. As these properties could not be sold the assessee leased them for earning rental income to various consultants. The rental income received at Rs.26,87,635/-has been shown under the head income from house

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

business. Some immoveable property which remains unsold are part of the closing stock. As these properties could not be sold the assessee leased them for earning rental income to various consultants. The rental income received at Rs.26,87,635/-has been shown under the head income from house

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

income from salary, house property, profit and gains of business or profession or capital gains nor the income from other

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

business, the depreciation on the same was claimed by the assessee. In the re-opened assessment order as passed by the assessing officer, following amount was added to the total income of the assessee:- S.No Nature of addition Amount [Rs] 1 Income from House Property

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

business, the depreciation on the same was claimed by the assessee. In the re-opened assessment order as passed by the assessing officer, following amount was added to the total income of the assessee:- S.No Nature of addition Amount [Rs] 1 Income from House Property

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

business, the depreciation on the same was claimed by the assessee. In the re-opened assessment order as passed by the assessing officer, following amount was added to the total income of the assessee:- S.No Nature of addition Amount [Rs] 1 Income from House Property

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

business, the depreciation on the same was claimed by the assessee. In the re-opened assessment order as passed by the assessing officer, following amount was added to the total income of the assessee:- S.No Nature of addition Amount [Rs] 1 Income from House Property

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

business, the depreciation on the same was claimed by the assessee. In the re-opened assessment order as passed by the assessing officer, following amount was added to the total income of the assessee:- S.No Nature of addition Amount [Rs] 1 Income from House Property

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE., INDORE vs. MP ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, M.P. Entertainment & 1(1), Developers Private Ltd., Indore. 94-101, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ C-21 Malls, Vs. Indore (Revenue /Appellant) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aaecm8668D Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024

business income of the assessee whereas the assessee had house property income as per the rent agreement made with various

NARMADA GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY,KHIRKIYA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-ITARSI, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14 Narmada Ginning Acit, Circle & Pressing

income from house property at Rs.8,71,861/- less business income from warehouse shown by the assessee at Rs.5,90,980/-). Income

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

income from house property”, “profits and gains of business or profession”, “capital gains” and “income from other sources”. As far as Section

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

business activity. The only finding of the A.O. is that the appellant has been unable to produce the confirmations from few of the parties. It is observed from the submissions that the goods have been supplied under various invoices and the payments have been received by account payee cheques from time to time. In view of the totality of facts

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

Housing (P) Ltd-267 ITR 149 Delhi Brokerage paid to brokers were not related to the assessee and expenditure is neither of personal nor capital. Disallowance not justified. (5) ACIT vs. Uday S. Kotak (2007) 13 SOT 548 Mum In this context it is to be seen that how much brokerage income has been earned by the assessee, whether

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

business whereas the remaining undisclosed income of Rs.1,89,76,375/-'was admitted by him as having been derived from a source other than the source of income from salary, house property