THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 54F provides options to the assessee to invest even within a period of one year before the date on which transfer took place and there is no precondition imposed by the provision to the effect that the property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 54F provides options to the assessee to invest even within a period of one year before the date on which transfer took place and there is no precondition imposed by the provision to the effect that the property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 54F provides options to the assessee to invest even within a period of one year before the date on which transfer took place and there is no precondition imposed by the provision to the effect that the property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

173 Taxman 311 in which a Shri Sukhram Mukati & Shri Vishnu Mukati v. ITO 3(3) Indore/ I.T.A. No. 409&410/Ind/2014/A.Y.08-09 Page 11 of 26 contrary view was taken but preferred the view taken by the Madras and Karnataka High Courts adopting the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v.Vegetable Products Ltd [1973] 88 ITR 192 which

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing project” must be completed within the specified time. 11. Then, the Ld. DR distinguished the legal decisions adopted by Ld. CIT(A) for giving relief to the assessee. We extract below those decisions and the analysis presented by Ld. DR: (a) Ramsukh Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing project” must be completed within the specified time. 11. Then, the Ld. DR distinguished the legal decisions adopted by Ld. CIT(A) for giving relief to the assessee. We extract below those decisions and the analysis presented by Ld. DR: (a) Ramsukh Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing project” must be completed within the specified time. 11. Then, the Ld. DR distinguished the legal decisions adopted by Ld. CIT(A) for giving relief to the assessee. We extract below those decisions and the analysis presented by Ld. DR: (a) Ramsukh Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing project” must be completed within the specified time. 11. Then, the Ld. DR distinguished the legal decisions adopted by Ld. CIT(A) for giving relief to the assessee. We extract below those decisions and the analysis presented by Ld. DR: (a) Ramsukh Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing project” must be completed within the specified time. 11. Then, the Ld. DR distinguished the legal decisions adopted by Ld. CIT(A) for giving relief to the assessee. We extract below those decisions and the analysis presented by Ld. DR: (a) Ramsukh Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition

SHRI NARAYAN DAS TOLANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

173 Total 16,75,000 22,97,034 6,22,034 After rejecting the objections raised by the Valuer of the assessee, the addition of Rs. 6,22,034/- was made to the returned income of the assessee in the assessment of assessment year 2007-08 on account of undisclosed investment in the construction of the house. In addition

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

house property, relying upon documents statements of the firm furnished by the assessee before CIT(A) as additional evidence, without providing any opportunity to be assessing officer to rebut the same, when it is mandatory as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules at Ld. CIT(A) shall not take into account any evidence produced under Rule

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

house property, relying upon documents statements of the firm furnished by the assessee before CIT(A) as additional evidence, without providing any opportunity to be assessing officer to rebut the same, when it is mandatory as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules at Ld. CIT(A) shall not take into account any evidence produced under Rule

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. Income of Rs.46,16,412/- declared in the income tax return submitted on 31.07.2010. Return filed were processed u/s 143(1). Case selected for scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the details the learned Assessing Officer (In short `Ld.A.O’) observed that

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. Income of Rs.46,16,412/- declared in the income tax return submitted on 31.07.2010. Return filed were processed u/s 143(1). Case selected for scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the details the learned Assessing Officer (In short `Ld.A.O’) observed that

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. Income of Rs.46,16,412/- declared in the income tax return submitted on 31.07.2010. Return filed were processed u/s 143(1). Case selected for scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act duly served upon the assessee. While scrutinizing the details the learned Assessing Officer (In short `Ld.A.O’) observed that

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 69 of the Act would apply only when the transaction is not recorded in the books. It is stated [ITA Nos.310 & 312/Ind/2015] [Shri Prabhat Sojatia & Shri Sunil Sojatia] that the assessment of assessment year 2009-10 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein the cash balance was duly accepted. It is also stated that the cash

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 69 of the Act would apply only when the transaction is not recorded in the books. It is stated [ITA Nos.310 & 312/Ind/2015] [Shri Prabhat Sojatia & Shri Sunil Sojatia] that the assessment of assessment year 2009-10 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein the cash balance was duly accepted. It is also stated that the cash

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

property. E- M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. return of income filed on 27.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs.51,72,569/- which comprises of depreciation loss at Rs.1,53,066/- and business loss of Rs.50,19,503/-. Case selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS for the reason ‘large unsecured loans’. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act duly served upon