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

Appeal is allowed

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

151 was released by local authority vide order No 1848 dated 18.05.2012 and plot no 152 was released by local authority vide order No 282 dated 26.02.2015. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause with the appellant for not getting completion certificate for all 180 units. Per contra, the ld AO has alleged that the two units which remained incomplete

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

Appeal is allowed

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

151 was released by local authority vide order No 1848 dated 18.05.2012 and plot no 152 was released by local authority vide order No 282 dated 26.02.2015. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause with the appellant for not getting completion certificate for all 180 units. Per contra, the ld AO has alleged that the two units which remained incomplete

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

Appeal is allowed

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

151 was released by local authority vide order No 1848 dated 18.05.2012 and plot no 152 was released by local authority vide order No 282 dated 26.02.2015. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause with the appellant for not getting completion certificate for all 180 units. Per contra, the ld AO has alleged that the two units which remained incomplete

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

Appeal is allowed

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

151 was released by local authority vide order No 1848 dated 18.05.2012 and plot no 152 was released by local authority vide order No 282 dated 26.02.2015. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause with the appellant for not getting completion certificate for all 180 units. Per contra, the ld AO has alleged that the two units which remained incomplete

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

Appeal is allowed

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

151 was released by local authority vide order No 1848 dated 18.05.2012 and plot no 152 was released by local authority vide order No 282 dated 26.02.2015. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause with the appellant for not getting completion certificate for all 180 units. Per contra, the ld AO has alleged that the two units which remained incomplete

SHANKAR SEWANI,NEW MARKET vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

house property, profit & gains from business & profession, short term capital gains, long term capital gains and income from other sources. No scrutiny assessment has been made in the case of the assessee. During the course of search operation in Signature group conducted by Investigation Wing, Bhopal, certain loose papers pages no. 41-43 of LPS- 65 were seized from

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

house property and not allowable for investment in Plot. Therefore, total under assessment of income is Rs. 1,77,21,919/- (Rs. 91,35,500/- and Rs. 85,86,419/-). 3.3 Thus, during the course of assessment proceedings, you have neither furnished any details nor explained the issues involved with relevant documentary evidence with regard to issues narrated above

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

house at Mansab Manzil, Karbala Bhopal which attract section 22, but the Ld. AO has not made enquiries: Ld. AR made same pleadings as for Issue No. 2. (v) Issue No. 5 – There are many cash-deposit entries appearing in the bank which have not been enquired into at all by assessing officer: Ld. AR carried us to Paper Book

RADHA SHARAN GOSWAMI,BHOPAL vs. DDIT,CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradha Sharan Goswami Ddit, Cpc B-18, Industrial Area Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adzpg1806E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

House property of Rs 94,76,461, the gross rent of the two let out properties of the appellant are taken into consideration. From the computation of income, its evident that, gross rents of both properties are Rs 19,50,916 and Rs 69,77,485 which sums up at Rs 89,28,401. Hence, the appellant can be granted

DCIT-CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SINGNATURE COLONISERS, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

151 – The findings of Hon’ble Tribunal was as under:- “20.1 After perusing the findings of the CIT(A) and the submissions of both the parties, we do not find any infirmity in these findings. Firstly the finding of the CIT(A) has not been controverted by the learned Departmental Representative by Signature Coloniser/Builder

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS AND COLONISER, BHOPAL

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

151 – The findings of Hon’ble Tribunal was as under:- “20.1 After perusing the findings of the CIT(A) and the submissions of both the parties, we do not find any infirmity in these findings. Firstly the finding of the CIT(A) has not been controverted by the learned Departmental Representative by Signature Coloniser/Builder

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

151 on assumptions without existence of the actual correspondence regarding approval and without confronting the assessee with the same.. 12. The appellant craves leave and sanction of the Hon'ble ITAT to file additional evidence, if so required for proper prosecution of the case, based on facts and circumstances, which has not been or could not be adduced

AJIT BONDRIYA,LIMASSOL, CYPRUS vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

House, DR\nBhopal\nAnnie Besant Road Worli\nबनाम\nMumbai-400018\n/Vs.\n(Appellant / Assessee)\n(Respondent / Revenue)\nPAN: AKSPB7252M\nAssessee by\nShri S.S. Deshpande, AR\nRevenue by\nShri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n18.08.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n22.08.2025\nORDER\nPer B.M. Biyani, AM:\nFeeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 07.05.2025 passed by\nlearned Commissioner of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

Housing (P) Ltd-267 ITR 149 Delhi Brokerage paid to brokers were not related to the assessee and expenditure is neither of personal nor capital. Disallowance not justified. (5) ACIT vs. Uday S. Kotak (2007) 13 SOT 548 Mum In this context it is to be seen that how much brokerage income has been earned by the assessee, whether

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

151 taxmann.com 71 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that it was not open to the Pr. CIT while exercising suo motu revisional power under section 263 of the Act to find fault with the assessment order of the AO on the ground of its being erroneous on an issue which was not subject matter

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

151 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that where the assessee had invested his own funds, it would be assumed that the assessee was acting as a developer and not as a contractor. Relevant extract of the above decision is reproduced as under : "83 ** ** ** There are letters exchanged, written by the assessee and various Government departments, which indicate that