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

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

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 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

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

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

natural justice - Held, yes” [emphasis supplied] f. Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Anil Shah – [2007] 162 Taxman 39 – order pronounced on 21.01.2006 – HEAD NOTE – “Section 263, read with section 80HHC, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether if all relevant details have been

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary and in the absence

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

ABHISHEK DHANOTIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

property. Accordingly, there cannot be a case of undisclosed investment in the instant case. Interest on the housing loan availed for making investment in the impugned flat is claimed as a deduction in the return and has been allowed in the assessment. g. Also, addition made u/s 69 by the Ld. AO is a deeming provision. To apply such

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 SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 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