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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5, held that the identical to that of held that merely because main object of the Chennai Properties & income is attached to assessee in its MOA : Rayala Corporation. The any immovable property was to acquire & hold assessee company has cannot be the sole factor for properties and to let out been incorporated with assessment of such income as such properties

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

5, held that the identical to that of held that merely because main object of the Chennai Properties & income is attached to assessee in its MOA : Rayala Corporation. The any immovable property was to acquire & hold assessee company has cannot be the sole factor for properties and to let out been incorporated with assessment of such income as such properties

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

d) The assessee has not declared any income under the head of Income from House Property even when rental income requires to be taxed under this head. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has filed detailed written submissions relying upon the various judicial pronouncements, which are mentioned as under :- (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited

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

d) The assessee has not declared any income under the head of Income from House Property even when rental income requires to be taxed under this head. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has filed detailed written submissions relying upon the various judicial pronouncements, which are mentioned as under :- (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited

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

d) The assessee has not declared any income under the head of Income from House Property even when rental income requires to be taxed under this head. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has filed detailed written submissions relying upon the various judicial pronouncements, which are mentioned as under :- (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited

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

d) The assessee has not declared any income under the head of Income from House Property even when rental income requires to be taxed under this head. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has filed detailed written submissions relying upon the various judicial pronouncements, which are mentioned as under :- (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited

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

d) The assessee has not declared any income under the head of Income from House Property even when rental income requires to be taxed under this head. 8. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has filed detailed written submissions relying upon the various judicial pronouncements, which are mentioned as under :- (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited

SANKALP SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisankalp Sakh Sahkari Pr. Cit-1 Sanstha Maryadit Indore 1, C/O Smriti Nagrik Sahkari Vs. Bank Dayamandir Road Goshala Market, Mandsaur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeas0312G Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2024

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 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

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

d) of section 269UA. Explanation 2- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that. "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always Page 7 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or treating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely

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

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: The above captioned Cross appeals for Assessment Year 2006- 07 and Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Indore, (in short ‘CIT(A)’), vide appeal No. IT-433/2008-08 & 290/2009-10 order dated 21.02.2014 which is arising out of the order

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

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: The above captioned Cross appeals for Assessment Year 2006- 07 and Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Indore, (in short ‘CIT(A)’), vide appeal No. IT-433/2008-08 & 290/2009-10 order dated 21.02.2014 which is arising out of the order

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

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: The above captioned Cross appeals for Assessment Year 2006- 07 and Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Indore, (in short ‘CIT(A)’), vide appeal No. IT-433/2008-08 & 290/2009-10 order dated 21.02.2014 which is arising out of the order

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

d) date of commencement of construction and name of Architect / builder engaged to this effect. However, the assessee did not reply to said letter and has expressed his inability to furnish details called for. In view of these circumstances, the AO along with his Shri Sushil Kumar Bafna, Ujjain v. ITO-1(1) /I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014/A.Y.:10-11 Page 5

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

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

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

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

House, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN AACCS4128C Appellant by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, CAs Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement 03.06.2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

House, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN AACCS4128C Appellant by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, CAs Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement 03.06.2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year