MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

house. Remaining amount has been added in the hands of his wife Smt. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia. The valuation officer has determined cost of construction at Rs. 2,46,69,000/- whereas, the appellant has shown total cost of construction at Rs. 1,18,50,047/-. The appellant during the assessment proceedings as well as in the appellate proceedings pointed

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

house. Remaining amount has been added in the hands of his wife Smt. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia. The valuation officer has determined cost of construction at Rs. 2,46,69,000/- whereas, the appellant has shown total cost of construction at Rs. 1,18,50,047/-. The appellant during the assessment proceedings as well as in the appellate proceedings pointed

ACIT (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL vs. M/S. FORTUNE SOUMYA HOUSING, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2014-15. 2.1. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of development and construction of 2 I.TA No. 667/IND/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No ACIT vs. M/s. Fortune

SARSWATI VIDHYA PRATISHTHAN M.P ,BHUPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

housing amongst emerging urban populous and to provide effective platform for holding interface amongst various stakeholders connected with development or urban infrastructure with Govt. agencies and general public for the development of civic infrastructure. We further note that the persons taking part in such fairs and making contributions are primarily members of the appellant-institution. It may be so that

INDORE PARASPAR SAHAKARI GRAH NIRMAN SANSTHA SAMITI,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Indore Paraspar Sahkari Acit, Circle 2(1) Grih Nirman Sanstha Indore Vs. 224-Mishal Plaza, Tilakpath, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaaai2629G Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2024 O R D E R

Housing Cooperative Society Act and appointed receiver/liquidator. The receiver taken over the charge of society on 09.03.2013 and issued a Public notice dated 11.03.2013 to all debtors and creditors regarding their claim. Earlier in the process of liquidation a community Hall along with land situated at scheme no.71, sector-C was transferred vide sale deed dated 17.12.2008 for a consideration

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 92C(3) of the Act, read with the Rules. It would, among other aspects, refer to the method adopted and whether reliability and authenticity of the arm's length determination is affected or corrupted. 83. We now proceed to examine the TNM Method, whether there is prohibition in applying this method on entity to entity basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,INDORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,INDORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,INDORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,INDORE vs. DCIT ( EXEMPTION CIRCLE) , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

193 ITR 321 (SC). 11. Ld. counsel for the assessee also requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 read with Rule 18(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963 filed in support of the claim that the expenditure incurred under the City Environmental Development and Preservation Expenses are revenue in nature. The prayer made by the assessee requesting