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

13 – Court in the matter of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the income derived from the property which is not exploited as business asset has been held to be the ‘income from property’ and not ‘income from business’. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Karnani Properties

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

13 – Court in the matter of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the income derived from the property which is not exploited as business asset has been held to be the ‘income from property’ and not ‘income from business’. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Karnani Properties

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

housing the college, hostel and to provide other facilities to the students who are studying in the College. The College is recognized by the Medical Council of India, State of Karnataka and all other statutory authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Trust is not genuine. Admittedly, the students are being admitted every year. Students are studying

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

housing the college, hostel and to provide other facilities to the students who are studying in the College. The College is recognized by the Medical Council of India, State of Karnataka and all other statutory authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Trust is not genuine. Admittedly, the students are being admitted every year. Students are studying

FAIZAN E BURHANE MILLAT TRUST,JABALPUR vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanifaizan E Burhane Millat Cit(Exemption) Trust Bhopal 181/1, Baitla Colony Vfj Society, Ward Shaheed, Abdul Vs. Hameed, Raza Chowk Milk, Scheme Road, Jabalpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatf8671J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Nd Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. -Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2024

section 13(1)(b) would be attracted in the case of the assessee. Further, CIT(E) has observed that the objects of the assessee confined to benefit to only Muslim community and therefore, it would be covered by restriction u/s 13(1)(b) of the Act even though it functions for public benefit. At the outset we noted that

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

13 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla the full consideration of the property merely on the ground that the same is not registered as per the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and has not paid the legitimate stamp duty on the same, if the intention of Law would be so then in the Income Tax Act no provision would have

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

13-14, Dhenu Market 38,92,340 4,67,080 (2,33,540 (+) 2,33,540) 2 12, Dhenu Market 8,45,890 1,01,500 3 103, Horizon, Saket Nagar 25,05,000 3,00,000 Self-occupied property at Old 4 1,50,000 Palasia Total 10,18,580 We find that copy of repayment schedule/ loan statement

CHIRAYU CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradchirayu Charitable Pcit (Central), Foundation,Bhopal Indore Bhopal Highway, Bhaisakhedi, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaaac3656P Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate, Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar, Advs Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am.

housing the college, hostel and to provide other facilities to the students who are studying in the College. The College is recognized by the Medical Council of India, State of Karnataka and all other statutory authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Trust is not genuine. Admittedly, the students are being admitted every year. Students are studying

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

13(8) of the Act. The findings of the CIT(A) /A.O. be quashed and it be held that the said provisions are not applicable. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in his findings that the operating receipts and the other receipts aggregating

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

13(8) of the Act. The findings of the CIT(A) /A.O. be quashed and it be held that the said provisions are not applicable. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in his findings that the operating receipts and the other receipts aggregating

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

13(8) of the Act. The findings of the CIT(A) /A.O. be quashed and it be held that the said provisions are not applicable. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in his findings that the operating receipts and the other receipts aggregating

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

13(8) of the Act. The findings of the CIT(A) /A.O. be quashed and it be held that the said provisions are not applicable. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in his findings that the operating receipts and the other receipts aggregating

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

13 - We have properly explained the deduction claimed u/s 54/54F in respect of both house properties exchanged and in support submitted copy of registered exchange deed during the course of assessment proceeding u/s 143(3), it is a transaction relating to transfer and acquisition of house property along with land appurtenant thereto; hence there is not question in respect

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

13 - We have properly explained the deduction claimed u/s 54/54F in respect of both house properties exchanged and in support submitted copy of registered exchange deed during the course of assessment proceeding u/s 143(3), it is a transaction relating to transfer and acquisition of house property along with land appurtenant thereto; hence there is not question in respect

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

section 54F was claimed on account of investment in capital gain account and partly in construction of a new house. 4.2 ·You have, claimed that transfer of the said property took place during the AY 2014-15., however while determining sale consideration, you have adopted the value of sale agreement (l.e. Rs.97,65,0001-.) which was entered into during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

Property and Land M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT/DCIT reported in 93 taxmann.com 296 wherein it was held that merely because, in the TDS certificate tax at source was deducted u/s. 194C being applicable to a contractor cannot be the reason for treating a genuine developer as a contractor. The same cannot detract