SMT. MANJU SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

2. . FS-5 as per LPS- 1/2, Sale Deed between M/s Fortune Shri Shailendra Kr. Soumya Housing Office at Sinha S/o Shri Ram page No. to 21 Fortune House, Plot No. 157, Dayal Shina and Smt. 54. (PB 253-261) Zone-I , MP Nagar Bhopal Neelam Sinha W/o vill. through its partner Shri Sameer & post suitha dost. Gupta S/o Shri

SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

2. . FS-5 as per LPS- 1/2, Sale Deed between M/s Fortune Shri Shailendra Kr. Soumya Housing Office at Sinha S/o Shri Ram page No. to 21 Fortune House, Plot No. 157, Dayal Shina and Smt. 54. (PB 253-261) Zone-I , MP Nagar Bhopal Neelam Sinha W/o vill. through its partner Shri Sameer & post suitha dost. Gupta S/o Shri

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

2. . FS-5 as per LPS- 1/2, Sale Deed between M/s Fortune Shri Shailendra Kr. Soumya Housing Office at Sinha S/o Shri Ram page No. to 21 Fortune House, Plot No. 157, Dayal Shina and Smt. 54. (PB 253-261) Zone-I , MP Nagar Bhopal Neelam Sinha W/o vill. through its partner Shri Sameer & post suitha dost. Gupta S/o Shri

SMT ANJANA SINHA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

2. . FS-5 as per LPS- 1/2, Sale Deed between M/s Fortune Shri Shailendra Kr. Soumya Housing Office at Sinha S/o Shri Ram page No. to 21 Fortune House, Plot No. 157, Dayal Shina and Smt. 54. (PB 253-261) Zone-I , MP Nagar Bhopal Neelam Sinha W/o vill. through its partner Shri Sameer & post suitha dost. Gupta S/o Shri

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

housing boards, regulatory authorities and corporations may be entitled to, if mandated to collect or Page 3 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 4 of 22 receive. The definition of charitable activity provided u/s 2(15) ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

housing boards, regulatory authorities and corporations may be entitled to, if mandated to collect or Page 3 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 4 of 22 receive. The definition of charitable activity provided u/s 2(15) ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

housing boards, regulatory authorities and corporations may be entitled to, if mandated to collect or Page 3 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 4 of 22 receive. The definition of charitable activity provided u/s 2(15) ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

housing boards, regulatory authorities and corporations may be entitled to, if mandated to collect or Page 3 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 4 of 22 receive. The definition of charitable activity provided u/s 2(15) ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The bunch of appeals preferred by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dated 15.12.2016, 16.12.2016, 28.02.2017 & 28.12.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-III & CIT(A)-I, Indore arising out of the orders passed by the JCIT, Range-4, Indore & ACIT, Circle-3(1), Indore & ACIT- 3(1), Indore dated

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The bunch of appeals preferred by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dated 15.12.2016, 16.12.2016, 28.02.2017 & 28.12.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-III & CIT(A)-I, Indore arising out of the orders passed by the JCIT, Range-4, Indore & ACIT, Circle-3(1), Indore & ACIT- 3(1), Indore dated

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The bunch of appeals preferred by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dated 15.12.2016, 16.12.2016, 28.02.2017 & 28.12.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-III & CIT(A)-I, Indore arising out of the orders passed by the JCIT, Range-4, Indore & ACIT, Circle-3(1), Indore & ACIT- 3(1), Indore dated

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The bunch of appeals preferred by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dated 15.12.2016, 16.12.2016, 28.02.2017 & 28.12.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-III & CIT(A)-I, Indore arising out of the orders passed by the JCIT, Range-4, Indore & ACIT, Circle-3(1), Indore & ACIT- 3(1), Indore dated

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

E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.12.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore (in short ‘CIT(A)’), arising out of the order dated 06.03.2013 passed by the JCIT, Range-3, Indore, under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. VENUS ENTERPRISES, INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

E R PER MANISH BORAD: The above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross-objection filed by the assessee are directed against the different orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, 3 Ajitnath Reality and others SS 14 of 2017 and others [in short ‘CIT(A)’], Indore dated 26.10.2016, 26.10.2016, 23.11.2016 & 07.6.2018 passed in different assessment orders

DCIT , CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S VENUS ENTERPRISES , INDORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

E R PER MANISH BORAD: The above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross-objection filed by the assessee are directed against the different orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, 3 Ajitnath Reality and others SS 14 of 2017 and others [in short ‘CIT(A)’], Indore dated 26.10.2016, 26.10.2016, 23.11.2016 & 07.6.2018 passed in different assessment orders

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

property income u/s 23 of the Act. Moreso, when the provision of section 22 to 27 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessee company was not the owner of land but Individual family members of the Luthra family was the actual owners of the land and the assessee company has taken land on lease from

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

property income u/s 23 of the Act. Moreso, when the provision of section 22 to 27 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessee company was not the owner of land but Individual family members of the Luthra family was the actual owners of the land and the assessee company has taken land on lease from

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

property income u/s 23 of the Act. Moreso, when the provision of section 22 to 27 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessee company was not the owner of land but Individual family members of the Luthra family was the actual owners of the land and the assessee company has taken land on lease from