DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

house belongs to respective joint owner in the ratio in which contribution for buying the property was made. In case a person has not contributed anything for the property he does not have any beneficial ownership in the property even if he is added as the first joint owner in the purchase deed. So, while selling the joint property

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

ANAMIKA GARG ,DEWAS vs. CIT, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Anamika Garg, Pcit, 117, Tukoganj Marg, Ujjain बनाम/ Nayapura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aiwpg 3922 D Assessee By Shri Suresh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

house property, capital gain and other sources, which was assessed by AO u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 42,17,604/- after making certain disallowance/addition. Subsequently, Ld. PCIT examined the record of assessment-proceeding and viewed that the assessment-order passed by AO is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

1 of schedule d. It is sufficient to cite the decision of this House in the sugar beet case (Smart v. Lincolnshire Sugar Co., Ltd., 20 T.C. 643; 156 L.T. 215) an illustration. The second proposition constitutes an exception. If the undertaker is a rating authority and the subsidy is the proceeds is the proceeds of rates imposed

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

1,20,000 sources e. ICICI Mutual Fund Income from other sources 4,42,440 f. Tower Rent income from other sources 3,08,340 5.1.2 With regards to g. Rent Building and Warehouse Income from House property of Rs 94,76,461, the gross rent of the two let out properties of the appellant are taken into consideration. From

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

property under consideration, giving following reliefs is contradictory :- (i) Relief of Rs. 48,07,238/- (para 3.3.5) ignoring that the ‘furniture and fixtures’ involve completely different items as dealt by Ld. CIT(A) at para 3.4 ? (ii) Relief given based on use by DVO of CPWD rates, as compared to the lower State PWD rates ? (iii) Relief given on architect

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

property under consideration, giving following reliefs is contradictory :- (i) Relief of Rs. 48,07,238/- (para 3.3.5) ignoring that the ‘furniture and fixtures’ involve completely different items as dealt by Ld. CIT(A) at para 3.4 ? (ii) Relief given based on use by DVO of CPWD rates, as compared to the lower State PWD rates ? (iii) Relief given on architect

SANATAN WAREHOUSE,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2022-23 Sanatan Warehouse, Cit(A) 162, Modi Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Zone-Ii, Mp Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aegfs0245D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2025

Section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act. 8. That the appellant prays for appropriate relief by setting aside the impugned order treating the return as invalid, and requests the Tribunal to direct the Learned Assessing Officer/CPC to accept the return as valid and process the same under the applicable provisions of the law.” 2. We have heard learned Representatives

SHRI RAJPAL JAIN,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3 (3), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirajpal Jain Ito-3(3) Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akypj 3794 L Assessee By Shri Girdhar Garg Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

house is also eligible for deduction under section 80C. 5.Ground05. The levy of interest u/s 234-B & 234-C is arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.Ground06. That no proper and reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant to prove his case and lead evidence in support of his claim