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

vi) As per rent agreements, contractual obligation of the assessee was very limited and the assessee was allowed to enter the premises of the tenants at reasonable intervals for inspection and to carry out repairs only. vii) The assessee was not under any contractual obligation to ensure that the customers who visited the mall keep on buying and/or availing various

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

vi) As per rent agreements, contractual obligation of the assessee was very limited and the assessee was allowed to enter the premises of the tenants at reasonable intervals for inspection and to carry out repairs only. vii) The assessee was not under any contractual obligation to ensure that the customers who visited the mall keep on buying and/or availing various

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

vi) As per rent agreements, contractual obligation of the assessee was very limited and the assessee was allowed to enter the premises of the tenants at reasonable intervals for inspection and to carry out repairs only. vii) The assessee was not under any contractual obligation to ensure that the customers who visited the mall keep on buying and/or availing various

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

vi) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC, (1971) 82 ITR 147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded

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

vi) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC, (1971) 82 ITR 147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded

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

vi) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC, (1971) 82 ITR 147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded

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

vi) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC, (1971) 82 ITR 147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded

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

vi) Sheo Nath Singh vs. AAC, (1971) 82 ITR 147 ( S. C.). (vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded

SHRI HUKUMCHAND CHOUDHARY ,INDORE vs. ITO (3),INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house. Since the large part of consideration was received in A.Y. 2011-12 and the assessee parted with the possessing of property to the buyer and finally sale deed was executed on 27.04.2011, i.e. just after 26 days from the end of the A.Y. 2011-12, hence in view of Section 2(47) of the Act the Long Term Capital

SHRI VINOD CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. ITO1 3), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Vinod Choudhary, Ito 1(3) 12, Niranjanpur, Indore Vs. Lasudia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akrpv 4892 Q Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bomb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

vi) of sec. 2(47). (e) That the AO had erred in non relying on the sale agreement and possession receipt produced by the assessee without bringing any contrary material, other evidence on record and without confronting the buyer of the property. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal.” 2. Heard the learned

M/S ASHOKA HI-TECH BUILDERS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

vi) On perusal of the above sub section, it would be seen that it deals with the transaction of transfer of capital assets and not stock in trade. In the instant case the assessee has reflected the land as stock in trade and therefore the provision of sub section are not applicable to it. vii) As regards the assessee argument

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

vi) If while making the assessment, the Assessing Officer examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and determine the income, the Commissioner of Income-tax, while exercising his power under section 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer

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

vi] s 68 as held in case of Gangehwari Metal P. ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 423 (Del). In this case it was noted by the Hon'ble judges that AO sat with folded hands till the appellant exhausted all the evidence or material in his possession and then came forward to merely reject the same on .the presumptions. In such

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

vi] s 68 as held in case of Gangehwari Metal P. ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 423 (Del). In this case it was noted by the Hon'ble judges that AO sat with folded hands till the appellant exhausted all the evidence or material in his possession and then came forward to merely reject the same on .the presumptions. In such

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

vi] s 68 as held in case of Gangehwari Metal P. ltd (2013) 214 Taxman 423 (Del). In this case it was noted by the Hon'ble judges that AO sat with folded hands till the appellant exhausted all the evidence or material in his possession and then came forward to merely reject the same on .the presumptions. In such

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

house property, profits & gains of business and profession, income from share in profits of firm and income from other sources. The return for the AY 2010-11 was filed by appellant on 17.03.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 4,49,440/-. On 12.07.2016, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Jain & Dixit Group. Certain

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

47,694 and relief of Rs. 61,22,811 was granted. Department is not in appeal against this relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). [PB 117] 12. Ld. Pr. CIT(Central), Bhopal erred in not considering the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to allege that the funds are siphoned and the fees are not fully reflected. Considering

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

47,694 and relief of Rs. 61,22,811 was granted. Department is not in appeal against this relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). [PB 117] 12. Ld. Pr. CIT(Central), Bhopal erred in not considering the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to allege that the funds are siphoned and the fees are not fully reflected. Considering