THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE vs. M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanii.T(Ss).A. Nos.14 To 16/Ind/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10)

Housing (2015) 374 ITR 645 (Mum.) (v) DCIT V/s Kalani Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 27 TTJ 286 (Trib. Indore) (vi) Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd. V/s ACIT (2016) 28 ITJ 47 (Trib. Indore.) “4.5 The appellant has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs Sar Yeash Co. (P) Ltd held

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

160 in which the same view was taken with reference to Section 54F was also noticed by this Court. 9. It thus appears to us that the predominant judicial view, including that of this Court, is that for the purposes of Section 54F, the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name

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

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

160/-. The assessee has shown income from 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

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

section 68 of the Act. Smt. Chandra Sahu ITA No.75 & 76/Ind/2019 7. That, the appellant, carves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from House Property and income from running a restaurant. Return

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

section 68 of the Act. Smt. Chandra Sahu ITA No.75 & 76/Ind/2019 7. That, the appellant, carves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from House Property and income from running a restaurant. Return

SMT. BHARTI BHASNE,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Housing Society after surrender of her rights in the property; and (ii) On account of cessation of customers liability of Rs.5,03,531/- in A.Y.2007- 08, of Rs.47,57,258/- in A.Y.2008-09 and of Rs.17,50,000/- in A.Y.2009-10. I.T(SS)A No. 181 to 184 /IND/2014 and Ors. A.Ys. 2005-06 to 08-09 Page No 6 Late Jitendra

LATE SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR BHASNE THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. BHARTI BHASNE,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Housing Society after surrender of her rights in the property; and (ii) On account of cessation of customers liability of Rs.5,03,531/- in A.Y.2007- 08, of Rs.47,57,258/- in A.Y.2008-09 and of Rs.17,50,000/- in A.Y.2009-10. I.T(SS)A No. 181 to 184 /IND/2014 and Ors. A.Ys. 2005-06 to 08-09 Page No 6 Late Jitendra

ITO 4(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. RSR HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION P LTD, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14 Ito 4(1) Rsr Housing Construction P. Bhopal Ltd. बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Byjpc4571L Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Girish Agrawal & Mis. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Bhopal Dated 31.01.2020 Which Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 263 Of The Income Tax

160/-. Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act and held the order of Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and restored it for fresh assessment along with necessary directions. In compliance thereto assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act were carried out and after considering

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

house-property, business / profession and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 66,28,161/- earned from sale of equity shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. exempted u/s 10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. for Rs. 33,418/-; sold

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

house-property, business / profession and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long-term capital gain of Rs. 90,69,199/- from sale of equity shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma Ltd. exempted u/s 10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased shares of Lifeline Drugs and Pharma

SHRI ASHOK KUKREJA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ashok Kukreja 12, Bright Colony, Idgah Hills Bhopal Pan:Abmpk1604K : Appellant V/S Ito-3(1) Bhopal : Respondent Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07.09.2021

section 54F of the Act.” 2. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual running business of grinding of spices, whole sale trading of spices, kirana items under the whole proprietorship concern of M/s. Kukreja Brothers. E-return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 filed on 20.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.3,38,160

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. VENUS ENTERPRISES, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

Section 153A/143(3) dated 31.3.2015, 31.3.2015, 31.3.2015 & 25.2.2016, respectively. Both the parties submitted that the lead case is Ajitnath Reality P. Ltd. and the decision taken for the assessment year 2009-10 will be applicable in the present group appeals as the same are also having identical facts and issue. Thus, we shall take up the case of Ajitnath Reality

DCIT , CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S VENUS ENTERPRISES , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

Section 153A/143(3) dated 31.3.2015, 31.3.2015, 31.3.2015 & 25.2.2016, respectively. Both the parties submitted that the lead case is Ajitnath Reality P. Ltd. and the decision taken for the assessment year 2009-10 will be applicable in the present group appeals as the same are also having identical facts and issue. Thus, we shall take up the case of Ajitnath Reality

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore [’the CIT(A)’] has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.6,54,95,133/- made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’the Act’) read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (’the Rules’) 2. That

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore [’the CIT(A)’] has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.6,54,95,133/- made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’the Act’) read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (’the Rules’) 2. That

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore [’the CIT(A)’] has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.6,54,95,133/- made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (’the Act’) read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (’the Rules’) 2. That