SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133(6) or by issuing summon VIS 131 to any of the creditors which is evident from the, assessment order itself. Moreover, it is also clear from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had never asked the assessee to produce the creditors. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 17.As per requirement of Section 68 the sum credited

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133(6) or by issuing summon VIS 131 to any of the creditors which is evident from the, assessment order itself. Moreover, it is also clear from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had never asked the assessee to produce the creditors. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 17.As per requirement of Section 68 the sum credited

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133(6) or by issuing summon VIS 131 to any of the creditors which is evident from the, assessment order itself. Moreover, it is also clear from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had never asked the assessee to produce the creditors. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 17.As per requirement of Section 68 the sum credited

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

133 TTJ 64 ITAT,(Tribunal).” In support of contention that exemption u/s 54 would be available even if the construction within statutory period, where the entire sale consideration is interested in purchase of land/construction of house. 6. On the contrary Ld. DR opposed the submission and submitted that case law would not support the case of the assessee

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

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

133- 134 6.2 Copy of ledger account of the assessee in the books of the creditor 135- 136 6.3 Copy of acknowledgment of income-tax return along with computation of 137- Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 income of the creditor for the Assessment Year 2010-11 139 6.4 Copy of final accounts of the creditor for the year ended

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

section 14 of the Act, any income chargeable to tax has to be classified under the five heads viz. income from salaries, income from house property, income from profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Further, u/s. 56(1) of the Act, any income shall be chargeable to income from other sources only

M/S BALAJEE STERLING BUILDER,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both of the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

property in the goods so used passes to the other party, the contractor undertaking the work will not necessarily be deemed, on that account, to sell the material. 4.6.1 The words 'developer' and 'contractor' have not been defined in the Act for the purposes of section 80-IB(10). The primary question which arises here is that how to find

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

house property. 5.10] That in view of the above after considering the facts of the case and detailed submission as filed along with Balance sheet wherein these facts were properly disclosed the appellant submits that the deduction as claimed by him under section 54F of the Act was legal and proper. The Ld. A.O. after considering all the aspects

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

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

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

133(6) to Shri Mahavir Jain, ex-partner of the firm M/s. Gold Terrace 16 Mohanlal Chugh & others Apartment, but Shri Mahavir Jain had neither attended nor filed any reply. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee on account of unexplained investment made in house property. 11.1 Being aggrieved

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)

133(6) to Shri Mahavir Jain, ex-partner of the firm M/s. Gold Terrace 16 Mohanlal Chugh & others Apartment, but Shri Mahavir Jain had neither attended nor filed any reply. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee on account of unexplained investment made in house property. 11.1 Being aggrieved

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

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

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

133(6) to Shri Mahavir Jain, ex-partner of the firm M/s. Gold Terrace 16 Mohanlal Chugh & others Apartment, but Shri Mahavir Jain had neither attended nor filed any reply. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,75,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee on account of unexplained investment made in house property. 11.1 Being aggrieved

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

133(6( cannot be attributed to the assessee for making the disallowance of claim or doubt the claim. 5.7 There is another aspect in this case regarding impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT when giving concluding finding is not sustainable without outcome of the inquiry conducted by the AO is available on record. It is pertinent to refer

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However, in case before us, assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to complete construction in time due to intervention of CID action on account of violation of provisions

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However, in case before us, assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to complete construction in time due to intervention of CID action on account of violation of provisions

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However, in case before us, assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to complete construction in time due to intervention of CID action on account of violation of provisions

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However, in case before us, assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to complete construction in time due to intervention of CID action on account of violation of provisions

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However, in case before us, assessee was prevented by reasonable cause to complete construction in time due to intervention of CID action on account of violation of provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(1), INDORE vs. SHRI ASHISH KUMAR BHATIA, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 68 of the Act: “2.1 Remand report submitted by the AO "The assesses Shri Ashish Kumar Bhatia, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 26.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 2,20,330/-. Assessee derives income ITO vs. Shri Ashish Kumar Bhatia Asst.Year –2014-15 - 4 – from salary, income from house property and income from other

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

property of the partnership firm. On this land, the assessee has constructed the houses for which approval was taken from Municipal Corporation on 13.12.2004 and 10.5.2005. Thereafter, the assessee firm entered into agreement for sale of plots of land to the respective buyers on which as per the agreement construction was to be done by the assessee firm. This agreement