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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 22 of the Act. Since, in the ensuing paragraphs 1 have held that the income of the /appellant is to be treated as ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years–2011-12 to 2014-15 - 18 – business income and not as income from house / property, these case laws are not relevant

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 22 of the Act. Since, in the ensuing paragraphs 1 have held that the income of the /appellant is to be treated as ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years–2011-12 to 2014-15 - 18 – business income and not as income from house / property, these case laws are not relevant

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

House property of Rs 20,53,990/- without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 2.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional income on account of Building used for the purpose of running of the school

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

House property of Rs 20,53,990/- without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 2.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional income on account of Building used for the purpose of running of the school

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

House property of Rs 20,53,990/- without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 2.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional income on account of Building used for the purpose of running of the school

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

House property of Rs 20,53,990/- without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 2.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional income on account of Building used for the purpose of running of the school

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

House property of Rs 20,53,990/- without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 2.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional income on account of Building used for the purpose of running of the school

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

section 2(47), the three conditions for deemed transfer are: 1. There is an agreement to sale for purchase/sale of the property between the buyer and seller. 2. Part consideration has been passed to seller from the buyer. 3. Possession of the property under consideration has been passed out to the buyer. While the AO has denied the claim

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

20. Now we take up assessee’s case for Assessment Year 2006-07 being I.T.A.No.392/Ind/2014 raising following grounds; “1. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has erred in treating the rental income earned from House property for Rs.26,87,635/- as business income and thereby confirming an addition of Rs.7,92,350/- claimed

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

20. Now we take up assessee’s case for Assessment Year 2006-07 being I.T.A.No.392/Ind/2014 raising following grounds; “1. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has erred in treating the rental income earned from House property for Rs.26,87,635/- as business income and thereby confirming an addition of Rs.7,92,350/- claimed

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

20. Now we take up assessee’s case for Assessment Year 2006-07 being I.T.A.No.392/Ind/2014 raising following grounds; “1. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has erred in treating the rental income earned from House property for Rs.26,87,635/- as business income and thereby confirming an addition of Rs.7,92,350/- claimed

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

house property, which view has been upheld by the Tribunal. The AO also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c), which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee was not guilty of any concealment or giving inaccurate particulars and had raised a debatable issue. In such a situation, penalty was deleted. 3. We have

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

Housing Projects Ltd – [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 – order pronounced on 01.03.2012 – HEAD NOTE – “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 2004- 05 - Assessee sold an immovable property

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

20 of 24 amount of capital gains has not been used towards purchase of plot of land and construction thereon. The unutilized amount of Rs. 11.50 lakh was not deposited in bank account before expiry of due date under section 139(1) as required under section 54F (4) of the Act. Further the amount of Rs. 87.90 Lakhs also used

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

20. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused material available on record. We find that the assessee categorically submitted that the amount of loan taken from ICICI Bank Ltd. and State Bank of India was utilized towards repayment of the loans taken earlier and utilized towards purchase of the properties which were let-out and rental

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

20,14.15, against which deduction under section 54F was claimed on account of investment in capital gain account and partly in construction of a new house. 4.2 ·You have, claimed that transfer of the said property

M/S BALAJEE STERLING BUILDER,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both of the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

20 of 26 M/s. Balaji Sterling Builders ITA No.597/Ind/2016& ITANo.692/Ind/2018 Assessment year 2010-11 the judicial rulings discussed below, that the ownership of land is not a pre- condition for eligibility of section 80-IB. On perusal of permissions-letters issued by the Municipal Corporation, we observe that the construction- permissions as well as completion-certificate have been issued

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT V~. Natrajan, (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad), though this case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, the said Section is pari materia of Section 54F(l) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case