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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Justice P P Bhatt, as the Judicial Member and the Hon'ble Vice President Shri Pramod Kumar, as the Accountant Member, in the case of Gulmohar P Mall Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2019 (8) TM 1431 (ITAT Ahd) has held that the income of the assessee engaged in the development and maintenance of immovable properties and mall management

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

Justice P P Bhatt, as the Judicial Member and the Hon'ble Vice President Shri Pramod Kumar, as the Accountant Member, in the case of Gulmohar P Mall Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2019 (8) TM 1431 (ITAT Ahd) has held that the income of the assessee engaged in the development and maintenance of immovable properties and mall management

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’ and not as ‘business income’ and for that reason made the impugned Page 9 of 22 ITA No. 471/Ind/2023 - AY 2016-17 SRK Dev Build Pvt. Ltd disallowances of deductions, the AO was very much wrong in stepping further and making a worse conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars qua those disallowances and thereby invoking section

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

natural justice. The "impugned order” should\ntherefore be set aside, as no notice(s) of hearing ever came to her\nknowledge and an exparte order came to be passed by Ld. CIT(A).\nThe Ld. AR for assessee canvassed same argument about non\ncommunication about notice(s) of hearing which he had\ncanvassed for the condonation of delay

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 and Rs 9,15,600/- was claimed from Income from Other sources. 6.3] The assessee has utilised its interest bearing funds for advancing to different parties and interest income was earned from the same. The assessee had claimed deduction to the extent of Interest received. Hence, claim of deduction of Interest against the interest income of the assessee

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 and has overlooked the finding of the AO mentioned in the assessment order. 3. On the facts and n the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT((A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,21,00,000/- made on account of cash payment against the purchase of property and has overlooked the finding

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. ITO, 4(3), BHOPAL, OFFICE OF ITO BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Nature of Loan itself shows that it is a housing loan, and thus the\nconstruction of house cannot be denied.\n6. It was also submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that no examination was done\nby the Ld. AO. In the interest of justice, if the Ld. AO disbelieve that the\nhouse was constructed, he should have examined the property

SMT MANORAMA SINGHAL,INDORE vs. ITO-3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Years: 2013-14

house property and other sources. Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30.07.2013 declaring income of Rs.8,80,350/-. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 22.09.2017, based on the information received on the basis of search conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 21.09.2012 at Garha Group and Apollo Group, Indore, alleging that ‘on-money

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

natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law; penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings : though proceedings for imposition of penalty emanate from proceedings of assessment, they are independent

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

natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law; penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings : though proceedings for imposition of penalty emanate from proceedings of assessment, they are independent

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

natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law; penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings : though proceedings for imposition of penalty emanate from proceedings of assessment, they are independent

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

natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law; penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings : though proceedings for imposition of penalty emanate from proceedings of assessment, they are independent

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

house of cards on\ntwo counts;\n\n(i)\nFirstly, the impugned SCN calling upon the appellant to showcase\nthe reasons as to why a penalty u/s 271AAB should not be\nimposed clearly concluded intimating the consideration of\nrepresentation before concluding proceedings imposing penalty u/s\n271AAB of the Act, as it ostensible from the reproduced text of SCN\nlaid

INDORE PARASPAR SAHAKARI GRAH NIRMAN SANSTHA SAMITI,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Indore Paraspar Sahkari Acit, Circle 2(1) Grih Nirman Sanstha Indore Vs. 224-Mishal Plaza, Tilakpath, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaai2629G Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

natural justice of law. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to modify or alter any of the grounds of appeal as and when necessary.” 2. The solitary issue arises in this appeal of the assessee is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO u/s 50C of the Act by taking

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. VENUS ENTERPRISES, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

property than shown in sale deed in their individual Income Tax returns. In the absence of any evidence linking the payments stated to have been paid by 4 purchasers of the plots, merely based on their statements it could not be stated that the appellant has received additional consideration. The assessing officer cannot base a decision on assumption of probabilities

DCIT , CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S VENUS ENTERPRISES , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

property than shown in sale deed in their individual Income Tax returns. In the absence of any evidence linking the payments stated to have been paid by 4 purchasers of the plots, merely based on their statements it could not be stated that the appellant has received additional consideration. The assessing officer cannot base a decision on assumption of probabilities

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

house property, profits & gains of business and profession, income from share in profits of firm and income from other sources. The return for the AY 2010-11 was filed by appellant on 17.03.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 4,49,440/-. On 12.07.2016, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Jain & Dixit Group. Certain

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

justice. Ground no.4.2 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 12. As regards to ground no.4.3, the same is not pressed and hence dismissed. 13. Now coming to the ground of appeal no.4.4 to 4.7, the same are related to exclusion of comparable companies that of seven companies and inclusion of four comparables. 14. Firstly we will take up exclusion