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” and therefore, the depreciation in respect of those areas was disallowed. In respect of the other common areas

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” and therefore, the depreciation in respect of those areas was disallowed. In respect of the other common areas

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

House Property 13,88,612 2 Disallowance out of Expenses 3,35,652 3 Disallowance of Depreciation of Building 5,72,905 22,97,169 6. The Ld. CIT[A] vide

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

House Property 13,88,612 2 Disallowance out of Expenses 3,35,652 3 Disallowance of Depreciation of Building 5,72,905 22,97,169 6. The Ld. CIT[A] vide

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

House Property 13,88,612 2 Disallowance out of Expenses 3,35,652 3 Disallowance of Depreciation of Building 5,72,905 22,97,169 6. The Ld. CIT[A] vide

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

House Property 13,88,612 2 Disallowance out of Expenses 3,35,652 3 Disallowance of Depreciation of Building 5,72,905 22,97,169 6. The Ld. CIT[A] vide

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

House Property 13,88,612 2 Disallowance out of Expenses 3,35,652 3 Disallowance of Depreciation of Building 5,72,905 22,97,169 6. The Ld. CIT[A] vide

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

house property. 5. That Ld.AO and thereafter Ld.CIT(A) both have disallowed the claim of appellant in this particular ASSESSMENT

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

house property. 5. That Ld.AO and thereafter Ld.CIT(A) both have disallowed the claim of appellant in this particular ASSESSMENT

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

house property. 5. That Ld.AO and thereafter Ld.CIT(A) both have disallowed the claim of appellant in this particular ASSESSMENT

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

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

House Property’ is summarized as under: S. No Description of property Cost of property Amount of interest claimed @12% which was [in Rs.] disallowed

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

house property. In the present case, the matter is related to depreciation. In view of the above the referred case laws do not relate to the present case. It is also to be pertinent to mention here that the assessee has not relied any case law related to disallowance

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowance of exemption u/s 54 of the IT Act, 1961. Shivcharan Singh 2. That, the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Bhopal has erred not to consider the additional evidences i.e. Photograph of the house property

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY MEHTA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit (Central)-1, Shri Sanjay Mehta, बनाम/ Bhopal Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Agepm2676G Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Sanjay Mehta, Dcit (Central)-1, बनाम/ Indore Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Agepm2676G Assessee By Shri Sanjay Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

house property bought jointly by appellant and his wife stood fully explained. The AO has by the addition of this income apparently taxed, an application of income already offered and taxed separately hence this addition needs to be deleted. Accordingly I allow this ground of appeal. We accordingly confirm the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the revenue

BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

property nor any documents was filed to 3 Bharat Shah prove the ownership of the residential house sold by Smt. Shardaben Shah. Ld. AO was also not satisfied with the expenditure of Rs.4,86,250/- incurred by the assessee on transfer for sale of plots of lands. Ld. AO accordingly disallowed

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

disallowed by the AO on the ground that when he inspected the property it was found that the assessee has not constructed a Shri Sushil Kumar Bafna, Ujjain v. ITO-1(1) /I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014/A.Y.:10-11 Page 15 of 24 residential house

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

property owned by appellant with his wife Smt. Sumitra Borad. There was a house on AS-28 and AH-29 was vacate. That initially the entire payment for Shaligram Borad construction of the original house was made by the appellant duly shown as the investment in the house in the balance sheet. During financial year 2014-15 relevant

THE ITO, WARD 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. T.LOGIKS, INDORE

In the result, all the grounds raised in appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

property and hence was deductible against the rent received. As regards the balance of Rs.5021652/- it has been explained that the same is relatable to sister concerns Pharmasia:Rs.368633/- AFD Pharmasia Rs.3948068/- and Vitamax Healthcare Rs. 704951/ - and is disallowed in the computation of the income from house