DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 28 of the Act and cannot be treated as income from house property. 4.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd, vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 0547 (SC) has held that income derived by an assessee, the owner of flats and shops, from services rendered in an organized and systematic manner, with the help

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 28 of the Act and cannot be treated as income from house property. 4.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnani Properties Ltd, vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 0547 (SC) has held that income derived by an assessee, the owner of flats and shops, from services rendered in an organized and systematic manner, with the help

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

House property” on notional basis. The assessee company is running coaching classes in its building and the said building constructed on its leasehold plot was also used by Jasleen Educational Service Society for running of school in the name of Auckland Academy. That in the year under consideration coaching income was very less but in last three to four years

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

House property” on notional basis. The assessee company is running coaching classes in its building and the said building constructed on its leasehold plot was also used by Jasleen Educational Service Society for running of school in the name of Auckland Academy. That in the year under consideration coaching income was very less but in last three to four years

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

House property” on notional basis. The assessee company is running coaching classes in its building and the said building constructed on its leasehold plot was also used by Jasleen Educational Service Society for running of school in the name of Auckland Academy. That in the year under consideration coaching income was very less but in last three to four years

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

House property” on notional basis. The assessee company is running coaching classes in its building and the said building constructed on its leasehold plot was also used by Jasleen Educational Service Society for running of school in the name of Auckland Academy. That in the year under consideration coaching income was very less but in last three to four years

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

House property” on notional basis. The assessee company is running coaching classes in its building and the said building constructed on its leasehold plot was also used by Jasleen Educational Service Society for running of school in the name of Auckland Academy. That in the year under consideration coaching income was very less but in last three to four years

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

property. The CIT(A) has considered this issue in para 6 & 6.1 as under: “6. Ground No.1: In this ground, the appellant has assailed AO's decision of denying deduction u/s 54 of Rs. 1,39,85,500/- on the ground that new residential house is not registered in the name of the assessee. In the submission filed

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3) for making addition, where no incriminating material relating to assessment years in question were found and seized from the premises of the assessee. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 16. Examining the fact of instant appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the light of the above judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3) for making addition, where no incriminating material relating to assessment years in question were found and seized from the premises of the assessee. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 16. Examining the fact of instant appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the light of the above judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR SETHI, INDORE

In the result appeal filed by the revenue being I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(3) for making addition, where no incriminating material relating to assessment years in question were found and seized from the premises of the assessee. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 16. Examining the fact of instant appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the light of the above judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

property being a residential house either before one year of the sale of the land or after three years from date of transfer of original asset. In the case of the assessee, we find that the assessee has purchased three plot of lands for Rs. 87.90 Lakh before one year from the date of transfer, but he has not constructed

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

house property, which view has been upheld by the Tribunal. The AO also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c), which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee was not guilty of any concealment or giving inaccurate particulars and had raised a debatable issue. In such a situation, penalty was deleted. 3. We have

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

property on 15.01.2016 and made the valuation on 15.01.2016 as noted in his valuation report. [Clause 2 of Part I and clause (c ) of Part III at PB 13 and 15] c. Cost of construction – Clause 41 – Year of commencement and year of completion: 2012-14 [PB 15] d. Valuation report also states that ‘valuation done for cost of construction

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

17(1A) of the Registration Act reads as under:- “(1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Page 7 of 34 Vaishali Developers And Builders ITA Nos. 26 & 27/Ind/2024- AYs 2007-08 & 2009-10 Property Act 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have

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

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

17. Ground nos. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue are with regard to deletion of additions of Rs.10,18,580/- made on account of disallowance of interest out of property income and Rs.9,15,600/- made on account of disallowance of interest out of income from other source. Facts as culled out from the orders of Revenue Authorities are that

SHRI ISHWAR PATEL,DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR

In the result, ground no. 4 in both the years are also

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 69 of the Act at Rs.1,05,500/- and addition for income from other sources at Rs.33,000/- on account of declaring excess figure of agricultural income. The income was assessed at Rs.1,76,900/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

SHRI ISHWAR PATEL,DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR

In the result, ground no. 4 in both the years are also

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 69 of the Act at Rs.1,05,500/- and addition for income from other sources at Rs.33,000/- on account of declaring excess figure of agricultural income. The income was assessed at Rs.1,76,900/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal