M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

property and found there is only boundary wall with gate and on whole land there was little construction, with walls and Tin shed roofing and construction is about 700-800 Sq.ft as against 1504 Sq.ft. construction claimed by assessee. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order gave scanned photographs stated to have been taken by Inpsector on site visit. Page

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

property and found there is only boundary wall with gate and on whole land there was little construction, with walls and Tin shed roofing and construction is about 700-800 Sq.ft as against 1504 Sq.ft. construction claimed by assessee. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order gave scanned photographs stated to have been taken by Inpsector on site visit

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

Appeals are allowed

section 80-IB(10), the entirety of project including development\nof infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR,\n'entire project' would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes\nthe construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the\ncase of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from\nassessee through registered Sale

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

section 133(6) & 131, the purchaser accepted the\nexistence of 'sale agreement' entered by him with the assessee but,\nHarpreet Kaur\nITA No. 730/Ind/2024 – AY 2009-10\nhowever, submitted that he made a payment of Rs.4,10,000/- only to\nassessee. The purchaser further submitted that that subsequent to\n'sale-agreement', he came to know that the impugned land

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

section 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

properties and invested in construction of houses, vehicles and marriages of family members etc. He therefore contended that the order of the Ld. AO may kindly be restored and the addition may kindly be confirmed. IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. 23. Per Contra the Ld. Counsel

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

properties and invested in construction of houses, vehicles and marriages of family members etc. He therefore contended that the order of the Ld. AO may kindly be restored and the addition may kindly be confirmed. IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. 23. Per Contra the Ld. Counsel

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

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

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

SMT. SANDHYA 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

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

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

section\n80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n9. The Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sky Builders & Developers reported in 14\ntaxmann.78 held that where the assessee sold plots to respective customers by\nregistering sale deed and thereafter constructed the building at an agreed price, it has\nto be concluded that the assessee merely worked

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

125 & 126/Nag/2021 - Chandra Suresh Kothari v. Dy. CIT, Central Circle 2(2) - Nagpur ITAT 14. Ld. AR prayed that the case of assessee is squarely covered on facts and in law by the above decisions. Therefore, in the light of those decisions, the AO is wrong in imposing penalty and the CIT(A) is also wrong in upholding

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

125 & 126/Nag/2021 - Chandra Suresh Kothari v. Dy. CIT, Central Circle 2(2) - Nagpur ITAT 14. Ld. AR prayed that the case of assessee is squarely covered on facts and in law by the above decisions. Therefore, in the light of those decisions, the AO is wrong in imposing penalty and the CIT(A) is also wrong in upholding

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

125 & 126/Nag/2021 - Chandra Suresh Kothari v. Dy. CIT, Central Circle 2(2) - Nagpur ITAT 14. Ld. AR prayed that the case of assessee is squarely covered on facts and in law by the above decisions. Therefore, in the light of those decisions, the AO is wrong in imposing penalty and the CIT(A) is also wrong in upholding

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

125 & 126/Nag/2021 - Chandra Suresh Kothari v. Dy. CIT, Central Circle 2(2) - Nagpur ITAT 14. Ld. AR prayed that the case of assessee is squarely covered on facts and in law by the above decisions. Therefore, in the light of those decisions, the AO is wrong in imposing penalty and the CIT(A) is also wrong in upholding