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

Appeal is allowed

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

37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 (i) XXX (ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority.” Analyzing this, the Ld. DR argued that the body of section clearly prescribes

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

Appeal is allowed

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

37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 (i) XXX (ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority.” Analyzing this, the Ld. DR argued that the body of section clearly prescribes

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

Appeal is allowed

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

37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 (i) XXX (ii) the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be the date on which the completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by the local authority.” Analyzing this, the Ld. DR argued that the body of section clearly prescribes

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

section 80-IB(10) of the Act. It is evidently clear that the appellant had acted merely as a contractor after selling the plots and not as a developer. Therefore, respectfully following the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal orders for A.Y. 2008-09, A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12, the appellant is not eligible

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

section\n80-IB(10) of the Act. It is evidently clear that the appellant had acted merely as a\ncontractor after selling the plots and not as a developer. Therefore, respectfully\nfollowing the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal orders for A.Y. 2008-09, A.Y.\n2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12, the appellant is not eligible

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, 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

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

37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and both were added to the total income of the assessee and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated separately on both disallowances for filing inaccurate particulars of income. 3.1 The AO has found that the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 2,10,80,516/- on building, furniture, fixture, electrical installation

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

Property act. It is also admitted fact that the appellant had not got any document registered for the sale of a residential unit. Thus, the appellant had not earned income on account of sale of residential unit as envisaged in section 801B(10) because the Page 8 of 14 ITANo.328/Ind/2023 Ram Babu Singh appellant after selling the plots of land

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

NEERA KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

37. Thus, the property on the date of transfer i.e. 02.01.2015 was not owned by assessee. Later on the agreement was cancelled due to insolvency proceedings of Seller and Builder – M/s AG8 Ventures Ltd. (ii) Flat at Pune – This property was wrongly taken under the head Fixed Asset schedule of Assessee’s Balance-Sheet, it actually belongs to the Mother

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

37. The Co-ordinate Bench of Lucknow in the case of Fateh Chand Charitable Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) v. CIT (Exemptions) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 33 (Lucknow - Trib.) Hon’ble Tribunal while dealing with the issue of Cancellation of registration under Section 12AA (iii) of the I.T Act held that: Para "Having carefully examined the order of the Id. Commissioner

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

37. The Co-ordinate Bench of Lucknow in the case of Fateh Chand Charitable Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) v. CIT (Exemptions) [2017] 83 taxmann.com 33 (Lucknow - Trib.) Hon’ble Tribunal while dealing with the issue of Cancellation of registration under Section 12AA (iii) of the I.T Act held that: Para "Having carefully examined the order of the Id. Commissioner

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Property Tax receipts for A.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and\n2018-19 (PB 120-123)\nc. An application in this regard is pressed before your honours. It is\ntherefore prayed that the additional evidences which are clinching\nevidences; and supporting the stand of the assessee that a\nresidential house was let out may kindly be taken on record

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

10,320/- only as against selling expenses as claimed by the assessee at Rs 6,26,353/- and thereby has disallowed an amount of Rs. 5,16,033/- out of total selling expenses for want of supporting documents etc. 5. Subsequently, a notice under section 263 of the Income Tax Act was issued by the Pr. CIT, Indore

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

37 & 38 as under: Page 9 of 32 Sewa Sahakari Sammittee Maryadit Beed Page 10 of 32 Page 10 of 32 Sewa Sahakari Sammittee Maryadit Beed Page 11 of 32 9. The AO has asked the assesse to furnish the details, documents books of account, bank account statement and income tax return computation of income audit report

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

37 Mohanlal Chugh & others evidences furnished by the assessee. We also find that the Assessing Officer has also not brought any corroborative evidence or material on record to establish that the construction of the house got completed at any time earlier than that claimed by the assessee. We further find that the assessee has also challenged the DVO’s report