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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4] has held that where an income has been derived by an assessee from the commercial exploitation of the properties and in lieu of its professed objects, then the same has to be regarded as business income and not income from house property. 6.00 CASE OF RAYALA CORPORATION - HON'BLE SUPREME COURT The Hon'ble Supreme Court again

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4] has held that where an income has been derived by an assessee from the commercial exploitation of the properties and in lieu of its professed objects, then the same has to be regarded as business income and not income from house property. 6.00 CASE OF RAYALA CORPORATION - HON'BLE SUPREME COURT The Hon'ble Supreme Court again

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 147 of the Act upon filing her return of income showing total income of Rs. 19,740/-: Computation of Capital Gains Sale Consideration received Rs. 29,00,000 Market Value of the property sold Rs. 42,52,000 PARTICULARA SALES MARKET VALUE CONSIDERATION 50% share in house property 14,50,000 21,26,000 sold (Itwara, Bhopal) Indexed Cost

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

house Taxable capital gain 1,86,107 32,32,461 Page 3 of 11 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(4), Bhopal ITA No. 208/Ind/2022 – AY 2009-10 Aggrieved, the assessee carried mater in first appeal but did not get any relief. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. Ld. AR for assessee drew

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

4) of the Act were initiated subsequent to search proceeding carried out on Ramani Group on 30th August 2016. Certain loose papers were found having some details of salary payments, calculation of higher salary, cash payment, hand written details of income and expenditure which have been claimed by the assessee to be dumb documents and the detailed discussion with regard

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

4) of the Act were initiated subsequent to search proceeding carried out on Ramani Group on 30th August 2016. Certain loose papers were found having some details of salary payments, calculation of higher salary, cash payment, hand written details of income and expenditure which have been claimed by the assessee to be dumb documents and the detailed discussion with regard

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

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

19. Further, CIT (A) has distinguished the decision relied upon by the AO in para 10.1 and 10.2 of the appellate order and has held that the same are not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case. Here, it is important to note that decision rendered in the case of Katira Construction Ltd. reported in 31 taxmann.com

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property, business etc.. 3.02.2 That, besides admitting the total undisclosed income of 15,89,76,375/-, as aforesaid, during the course of recording the another statement under s. 132(4), of real brother of the appellant namely Shri G.S. Bhatia on 26-10-2007 [kindly refer PB Page No. 43], Shri G.S. Bhatia, on the appellant's request

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

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

19 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified