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

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

carry forward the same for set off in next year’s. This loss includes Rs 6,65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee

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

carry forward the same for set off in next year’s. This loss includes Rs 6,65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee

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

carry forward the same for set off in next year’s. This loss includes Rs 6,65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee

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

carry forward the same for set off in next year’s. This loss includes Rs 6,65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee

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

carry forward the same for set off in next year’s. This loss includes Rs 6,65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee

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

carry forward of loss so we need to focus on the head“Aggregation of income” which covers Section 66 to 69D of the Act. The word aggregation of income nowhere makes a distinction about the head of income as to whether it is income from salary, income from house property

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

M/S. BHOPAL VIKAS PRADHIKARAN,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

properties etc. The charges for its activities which are added on the cost are as per the details below: 0/0 on cost of S.No. Particulars of charges construction (i) Supervision Charges 10% Audit, Building permissio charges & (ii) 1 1/2% n Miscellaneou (iii) Development on the cost of Building 4 1/2% Construction Work charges and Contingencies if (iv) On Actual

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation. The claim of deduction u/s Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 80IB in respect of the two eligible units viz. 'Spandhana' and 'Samruddhi' of Rs.2,23,22,237/- is obviously less than the gross total income. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer as well

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation. The claim of deduction u/s Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 80IB in respect of the two eligible units viz. 'Spandhana' and 'Samruddhi' of Rs.2,23,22,237/- is obviously less than the gross total income. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer as well

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation. The claim of deduction u/s Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 80IB in respect of the two eligible units viz. 'Spandhana' and 'Samruddhi' of Rs.2,23,22,237/- is obviously less than the gross total income. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer as well

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

forward losses or unabsorbed depreciation. The claim of deduction u/s Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 80IB in respect of the two eligible units viz. 'Spandhana' and 'Samruddhi' of Rs.2,23,22,237/- is obviously less than the gross total income. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer as well

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

loss totaling Rs.18,504/-. The Ld.CIT(A) accordingly treated Rs.6,62,870/- as income from unknown sources after giving benefit of purchase cost of Rs.1,19,530/- against the sale consideration. 10. Before moving further we will like to reproduce the findings of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s Himani M Vakil [2014] 41 taxmann.com

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

loss totaling Rs.18,504/-. The Ld.CIT(A) accordingly treated Rs.6,62,870/- as income from unknown sources after giving benefit of purchase cost of Rs.1,19,530/- against the sale consideration. 10. Before moving further we will like to reproduce the findings of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s Himani M Vakil [2014] 41 taxmann.com

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

loss totaling Rs.18,504/-. The Ld.CIT(A) accordingly treated Rs.6,62,870/- as income from unknown sources after giving benefit of purchase cost of Rs.1,19,530/- against the sale consideration. 10. Before moving further we will like to reproduce the findings of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s Himani M Vakil [2014] 41 taxmann.com