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

Appeal is allowed

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

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

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

Appeal is allowed

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

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

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

Appeal is allowed

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

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

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

property but only examining whether for the purpose of\nbenefit under s. 80IB(10), the assessee could be considered as the\nowner of the land in question. For the limited purpose of deduction u/s\n80IB(10), the assessee had satisfied the condition of ownership also,\neven if it was necessary. The Tribunal committed no error in holding\nthat the assesses

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. LIFE STYLE INFRATECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us." 14. Moving further relating to pro rata eligibility permission, pro rata simply means a proportionate division relating to each of the respective portions. On a critical analysis as to how the principle of pro rata is applied here is that

M/S. RAJDHANI LAND & HOUSING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S Rajdhani Land & Pr. Cit-1, Housing Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahfr4618J Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 20.09.2019. Rajdhani Land & Housing

section 80IB(10) of the Act raised in the instant case has come up before this Tribunal and the same are decided vide order dated 25.04.2012 directing the ld. AO to decide the issue afresh in light of various documents furnished. The relevant extract of the order of Tribunal is mentioned below: 15 Rajdhani Land & Housing Rival contentions have been

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

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

10,18,580/- made by the Assessing Officer was unjustified as the borrowed funds were utilized towards purchase of Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 the properties which were let-out and rental income earned therefrom was offered for tax under the head ‘Income from House Property’ and more so when such deduction on account of interest was allowed

SHANKAR SEWANI,NEW MARKET vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

10,000/- property sold+Rs.13,38,300/- property purchased) has escaped assessment for the F.Y 2010-11 relevant to the A.Y 2011-12 within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case a return of income was filed for the year under consideration but no scrutiny assessment

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

10) on the three grounds. First, that the appellant had merely acted as a contractor to the customers to whom plots of land were sold and not as a developer of the housing project; second What the appellant failed to complete the entire housing project before the specified date 31.03.2012; and third the appellant had not constructed all the residential

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

property but only examining whether for the purpose of benefit under s. 80IB(10), the assessee could be considered as the owner of the land in question. For the limited purpose of deduction u/s 80IB(10), the assessee had satisfied the condition of ownership also, even if it was necessary. The Tribunal committed no error in holding that the assesses

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

property but only examining whether for the purpose of benefit under s. 80IB(10), the assessee could be considered as the owner of the land in question. For the limited purpose of deduction u/s 80IB(10), the assessee had satisfied the condition of ownership also, even if it was necessary. The Tribunal committed no error in holding that the assesses

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

35 addition of Rs.2.00 crores paid to Narayan & Ambuja Infrastructure, this is an amount advanced by the said party to the assessee through the bank channel; that the same was considered and accepted by the AO for earlier assessment years; that accounts of both the parties were furnished before the AO, and therefore, there is no justification

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

35 addition of Rs.2.00 crores paid to Narayan & Ambuja Infrastructure, this is an amount advanced by the said party to the assessee through the bank channel; that the same was considered and accepted by the AO for earlier assessment years; that accounts of both the parties were furnished before the AO, and therefore, there is no justification

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

35 addition of Rs.2.00 crores paid to Narayan & Ambuja Infrastructure, this is an amount advanced by the said party to the assessee through the bank channel; that the same was considered and accepted by the AO for earlier assessment years; that accounts of both the parties were furnished before the AO, and therefore, there is no justification

MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

house property and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

house property and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

SMT. RUKMANI KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

house property and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing

RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ACIT4(1), INDORE

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

house property and other sources and also income from investing in shares. The assessee claimed exempt income u/s 10 (38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain derived from sale of listed company’s shares of companies M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. 4 (Rs. 20, 55, 146/-) and M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing