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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 (Mad.) has held that where in case of a let out property, if the actual rent received is more than the standard rent, the annual value of the property should be determined on the basis of actual rent received. In the instant case, the standard rent has not been fixed by the Rent for any property of Indore. However

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

147 (Mad.) has held that where in case of a let out property, if the actual rent received is more than the standard rent, the annual value of the property should be determined on the basis of actual rent received. In the instant case, the standard rent has not been fixed by the Rent for any property of Indore. However

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 147 of the Act upon filing her return of income showing total income of Rs. 19,740/-: Computation of Capital Gains Sale Consideration received Rs. 29,00,000 Market Value of the property sold Rs. 42,52,000 PARTICULARA SALES MARKET VALUE CONSIDERATION 50% share in house

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

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

147 assessee 7.3 Copy of acknowledgment of income-tax return along with computation of 148- income of the unsecured loan creditor for the Assessment Year 2010-11 150 7.4 Copy of Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss account of the unsecured loan creditor for the year ended 31st March, 2010 wherein the amount receivable 151 from the assessee is duly

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

section 147/148.” But, during the hearing of first-appeal, the assessee himself made following submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) on Page No. 17 of order of AY 1989-90 / Page No. 9 of AY 1990-91: “The issue is not being pressed for adjudication and same may please be treated as withdrawn.” Taking into account this submission

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

section 147/148.” But, during the hearing of first-appeal, the assessee himself made following submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) on Page No. 17 of order of AY 1989-90 / Page No. 9 of AY 1990-91: “The issue is not being pressed for adjudication and same may please be treated as withdrawn.” Taking into account this submission

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

section 147/148.” But, during the hearing of first-appeal, the assessee himself made following submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) on Page No. 17 of order of AY 1989-90 / Page No. 9 of AY 1990-91: “The issue is not being pressed for adjudication and same may please be treated as withdrawn.” Taking into account this submission

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

section 147/148.” But, during the hearing of first-appeal, the assessee himself made following submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) on Page No. 17 of order of AY 1989-90 / Page No. 9 of AY 1990-91: “The issue is not being pressed for adjudication and same may please be treated as withdrawn.” Taking into account this submission

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

section 147/148.” But, during the hearing of first-appeal, the assessee himself made following submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) on Page No. 17 of order of AY 1989-90 / Page No. 9 of AY 1990-91: “The issue is not being pressed for adjudication and same may please be treated as withdrawn.” Taking into account this submission

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), the entirety of project including development of infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR, ‘entire project’ would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes the construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the case of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from assessee through registered Sale-Deeds

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

property already took place on 07.01.2011. The seized document is entirely silent about the 9 IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma transaction whether it is a payment or receipt. The addition made by the A.O in respect of other notings in the seized document has been deleted by the CIT(A) in para No. 3.6.2 as under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

147 within a period of 10 days from the date of disposing of the objections of the assessee against the notice u/ 148 which is contrary to the procedure to be followed by the AO as directed by the Hon’ble High Court and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside. We order accordingly. ITANo.794/Ind/2018

SHRI KHALID AMAN,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

properties by the assessee had escaped assessment. Ld. AR submitted that the Issue No. 2 raised by Ld. PCIT was neither a reason of re- opening nor a matter which was considered by Ld. AO during the course of re-assessment proceeding in terms of the main body of section 147 / Explanation 3 to section 147. Hence the Issue

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

housing project before the specified date 31.03.2012; and third the appellant had not constructed all the residential units of the project less than 1500 sq.ft. as only 35 units out of total of 147 residential units were found to be having built up area of less than 1500 sq.ft. It is noticed by the A.O. that the appellant had sold

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

Appeal is allowed

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

147 plots and the remaining 33 plots were withheld with the local authority as mortgage. Out of these 33 plots, 31 plots were released in phase wise manner on 31.07.2009, 30.10.2009, 21.04.2010, 16.07.2010, 01.10.2010 & 25.02.2011. Two plots which remained unconstructed and mortgage with local authority were plot no 151 & 152. Therefore, the appellant for getting exemption u/s 80IB

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

Appeal is allowed

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

147 plots and the remaining 33 plots were withheld with the local authority as mortgage. Out of these 33 plots, 31 plots were released in phase wise manner on 31.07.2009, 30.10.2009, 21.04.2010, 16.07.2010, 01.10.2010 & 25.02.2011. Two plots which remained unconstructed and mortgage with local authority were plot no 151 & 152. Therefore, the appellant for getting exemption u/s 80IB

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

Appeal is allowed

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

147 plots and the remaining 33 plots were withheld with the local authority as mortgage. Out of these 33 plots, 31 plots were released in phase wise manner on 31.07.2009, 30.10.2009, 21.04.2010, 16.07.2010, 01.10.2010 & 25.02.2011. Two plots which remained unconstructed and mortgage with local authority were plot no 151 & 152. Therefore, the appellant for getting exemption u/s 80IB

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

Appeal is allowed

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

147 plots and the remaining 33 plots were withheld with the local authority as mortgage. Out of these 33 plots, 31 plots were released in phase wise manner on 31.07.2009, 30.10.2009, 21.04.2010, 16.07.2010, 01.10.2010 & 25.02.2011. Two plots which remained unconstructed and mortgage with local authority were plot no 151 & 152. Therefore, the appellant for getting exemption u/s 80IB