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

156 DTR (Chd.) (Trib.) 251 has also held the same view. Furthermore, the Hon'b1e Amritsar Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Assa Singh &Anr. (2016) CCH 0287 (AsrTrib) held that agreement to purchase was sufficient document to indicate transfer of property in favour of the assessee. It was held that through the agreement. the seller was restrained

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

section 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner

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

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

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

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

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

MP STATE CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, 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

THE PR CIT-1 , BHOPAL vs. BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY., BYHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanipr. Cit-1 Bhopal Dugdh Sangh Sahakari Bhopal Maryadit Diary Plant, Near Habibganj Vs. Railway Station Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaaab0221D

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

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

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 Page 7 of 16 Indore Pragtishil Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Mydt, Indore. Vs. I.T.Department, NFAC, Delhi -ITA No.317/Ind/2023 Assessment year 2018-19 limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Properties Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2013)86 CCH 0368 (vi) ITO vs. Vaibhav Cotton Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 20 ITJ 422 Trib. – Indore (vii) ITO vs. M/s. Saaj Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 20 ITJ 103 (Trib.) Indore 15. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that facts in the case of assessee(s) are distinguishable because both the lender companies are registered

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Properties Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2013)86 CCH 0368 (vi) ITO vs. Vaibhav Cotton Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 20 ITJ 422 Trib. – Indore (vii) ITO vs. M/s. Saaj Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 20 ITJ 103 (Trib.) Indore 15. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that facts in the case of assessee(s) are distinguishable because both the lender companies are registered

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Properties Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2013)86 CCH 0368 (vi) ITO vs. Vaibhav Cotton Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 20 ITJ 422 Trib. – Indore (vii) ITO vs. M/s. Saaj Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 20 ITJ 103 (Trib.) Indore 15. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that facts in the case of assessee(s) are distinguishable because both the lender companies are registered

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

House property). That the\naforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the\n“impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment\norder" issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s.270A(1)/\n270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too.\n2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of\nthe Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

House property). That the aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment order” issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A(1)/ 270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too. 2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of the Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

M/S SWADESH DEVLOPERS AND BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

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

houses. ( Pg. 102 of PB) Clause 13 of the said agreement clearly provides that the assessee would do all the acts to get the property registered in the name and in the state as requested by the said party. However, the builder shall continue to have the possession of the property till the completion of the agreement. Under these circumstances

MAHESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ADDL JCIT (A) -1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

HOUSE PROPERTY\nगृह संपति से आय\n0\n0\n3\nHEADS OF\nINCOME\nINCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION\nव्यवसाय या वृति से लाभ एवं प्राप्तियां\n5,24,683\n7,94,683\n4\nINCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS\nपूंजीगत प्राप्तियां\n0\n0\n5\nINCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES\nअन्य सूत्रों से आय\n3,766\n3,766\n6\nINTRA HEAD ADJUSTMENTS\nNA\n0\n7\nGROSS

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

Section 58 of the Income-tax Act for supplementary statement of facts on the ground that the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not recorded essential facts on the point of object and purpose of giving subsidy to the respondent nor is any such finding of fact given. However, after hearing learned counsel, we see no valid ground to allow

LATE SHRI BALKRISHAN JOSHI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI BHOOPENDRA JOSHI),INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Late Shri Balkrishan Joshi Income-Tax Officer, (Through L/H Shri 5(1), Bhoopendra Joshi), Indore बनाम/ 541, Alok Nagar, Vs. Kanadia Road, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abjpj 0180 C Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Bavesh Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2024

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. This is the 2nd round of litigation by assessee before us. The background facts are such that the assessee filed return of income for AY 2008-09 on 31.07.2008 declaring a total income

SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

3. FS- 5 as per LPS – 1/2, page Sale Deep between M/S Fortune Shri Shailendra Kr. Number 22 to 44 Soumya Housing office at Fortune Sinha S/oShri Ram 55. (PB 245-252) House, plot No. 157, Zone-I, MP Dayal Shina and Smt. Nagar Bhopal thought its partners Neelam Sinha W/o vill. Shri Ajay Mohgaonkar S/o Shri & post suitha dost

SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

3. FS- 5 as per LPS – 1/2, page Sale Deep between M/S Fortune Shri Shailendra Kr. Number 22 to 44 Soumya Housing office at Fortune Sinha S/oShri Ram 55. (PB 245-252) House, plot No. 157, Zone-I, MP Dayal Shina and Smt. Nagar Bhopal thought its partners Neelam Sinha W/o vill. Shri Ajay Mohgaonkar S/o Shri & post suitha dost