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

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/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 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

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

8 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla 53A. Part performance. Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from whichthe terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property

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

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

8 on inner page No 13 of the order has accepted that a certificate was also obtained from the Bank and provided to him. In that case there was no justification for issuing of notice under section 263 of the Act on this count also. It is well settled principle of law that the Pr CIT can also make

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

8 - notice dated 04.06.2018 issued by the ITO under Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith annexure, appearing at Page Nos. 56 & 57 of the Paper Book filed before us, is reproduced hereinbelow: “In connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 you are required to: a) Furnish or cause to be furnished on or before 18/06/2018

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

8 - notice dated 04.06.2018 issued by the ITO under Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith annexure, appearing at Page Nos. 56 & 57 of the Paper Book filed before us, is reproduced hereinbelow: “In connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 you are required to: a) Furnish or cause to be furnished on or before 18/06/2018

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

8. This Court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, that Section was in pari materia with Section 54F. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

8,370 square\nfeet. From these observations, the AO modified the taxability head from\n“Income from House Property” to “Income from Other Sources” and\naccordingly disallowed the standard deduction of Rs.9,076/- claimed by\nassessee u/s 24(a). Further, the AO allowed proportionate interest\ndeduction of Rs.2,04,742/- on the basis of 17,13,693/- X 1,000/8

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

13 it has been held that: What section 80P(2)(d) of the Act......envisages is that such interest or dividend eamed by the assessee co-operative society should be out of the investments with any other co-operative society. The words "Co-operative Banks" are missing in clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

13 it has been held that: What section 80P(2)(d) of the Act......envisages is that such interest or dividend eamed by the assessee co-operative society should be out of the investments with any other co-operative society. The words "Co-operative Banks" are missing in clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section

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

Appeals are allowed

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

13. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that the AO, in his findings, has noted that the assessee sold plots to buyers through registered Sale-Deeds and Page 22 of 34 Vaishali Developers And Builders ITA Nos. 26 & 27/Ind/2024- AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10 entered into separate Agreements for construction of houses and that no registry/transfer of houses was made. Therefore

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

section 54F does not grant exemption if the assessee is owner of more than 1 residential house on the date of transfer. But in the present case, the assessee was owner of only 1 residential house and hence the exemption u/s 54F was rightly claimed by assessee and allowed by AO. At that stage, the Bench posed a question

MP STATE COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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

property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co- operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section