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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property u/s. 23 of the I.T. Act and no depreciation is allowable in respect of such income and after considering relevant facts of the case. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter the ground of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal” ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property u/s. 23 of the I.T. Act and no depreciation is allowable in respect of such income and after considering relevant facts of the case. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter the ground of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal” ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property u/s. 23 of the I.T. Act and no depreciation is allowable in respect of such income and after considering relevant facts of the case. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter the ground of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal” ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT

MAHESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ADDL JCIT (A) -1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

HOUSE PROPERTY\nगृह संपति से आय\n0\n0\n3\nHEADS OF\nINCOME\nINCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION\nव्यवसाय या वृति से लाभ एवं प्राप्तियां\n5,24,683\n7,94,683\n4\nINCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS\nपूंजीगत प्राप्तियां\n0\n0\n5\nINCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES\nअन्य सूत्रों से आय\n3,766\n3,766\n6\nINTRA HEAD ADJUSTMENTS\nNA\n0\n7\nGROSS

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

Housing Projects Ltd – [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 – order pronounced on 01.03.2012 – HEAD NOTE – “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 2004- 05 - Assessee sold an immovable property and claimed capital loss after indexation - Commissioner had doubts about valuation and sale consideration received but he had not examined said aspect

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

loss of Rs. 80,23,177/- on account of sale of shares.” 2. The assessee is an individual who filed return of income for the relevant AY 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,78,540/-. The case was subjected to scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued from time to time

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

loss or disadvantage by stating\nthe full price of Rs.5,00,000 in the sale deed. The understatement of the sale\nprice in the sale deed could have been done at the instance of the buyer and,\ntherefore, the testimony of the buyer should not be given any credence.\n5.\nOn the basis of the above circumstances, it was submitted

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

property in the year under consideration. 4.2) That the assessee in the year under consideration has sold Equity shares of M/ s Idea Cellular Limited and M/ s Sunrise Asian Limited. The copy contract notes as issued by the broker in respect of sale of Shares along with the copy of D-Mat A/ c Statement of the assessee

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

property and not allowable for investment in Plot. Therefore, total under assessment of income is Rs. 1,77,21,919/- (Rs. 91,35,500/- and Rs. 85,86,419/-). 3.3 Thus, during the course of assessment proceedings, you have neither furnished any details nor explained the issues involved with relevant documentary evidence with regard to issues narrated above. It appears

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

Appeal is allowed

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

forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However, in case before us, assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to complete construction in time due to intervention

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

Appeal is allowed

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

forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However, in case before us, assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to complete construction in time due to intervention

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

Appeal is allowed

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

forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However, in case before us, assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to complete construction in time due to intervention

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

Appeal is allowed

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

forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However, in case before us, assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to complete construction in time due to intervention

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

Appeal is allowed

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

forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However, in case before us, assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to complete construction in time due to intervention

SHRI SANJEEV PATNI,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

loss claimed by e Appellant under the head 'short term capital gains' of Rs. 53,37,250/- from sale of shares. Ground no. 5 :- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner Appeals) erred in sustaining to the extent of Rs. 4,05,223/- the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 (1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJEEV PATNI, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

loss claimed by e Appellant under the head 'short term capital gains' of Rs. 53,37,250/- from sale of shares. Ground no. 5 :- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner Appeals) erred in sustaining to the extent of Rs. 4,05,223/- the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

forward to merely reject the explanation so made, without carrying out any verification or enquiry into the material placed before him by the assessee. If the Assessing Officer harbours any doubts of the legitimacy of any subscription he is empowered, nay duty-bound, to carry out thorough investigations. But if the Assessing Officer fails to unearth any wrong or illegal

LATE SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR BHASNE THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. BHARTI BHASNE,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

loss papers seized from the assessee’s premises, purchase of plot at Gora Bishankhedi, Investment in ICICI Prudential Policy in the name of the wife and husband, loose papers found at the premises of the contractor Shri R.K. Garg and registration expenses for plot at Kerwa Dam and demanded tax thereon. Similarly in the case of Smt. Bharti Bhasne various