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

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

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

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

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

21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla 5. In this case even without execution of sale deed, the transferee acquires the right in the property and the transferor cannot claim any right in respect of property under consideration other than the rights expressly provided in the terms of contract. Section 2(47(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; covers within

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

21 taxmann.com 8 (Del), CIT vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. (2015) 55 taxmann.com 406 (Bom), CIT v. Indersons Leather P. Ltd. (2011) 196 Taxman 103 (P&H) (MAG) and ITO vs. Roborant Investments P. Ltd. (2006) 7 SOT 181 (Mum). The assessee has stated that penalty initiated in the present case is not maintainable, therefore, it is our humble request

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

housing project. Combined reading of Section 2(47)(v) and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would lead to a situation where the land would be for the purpose of Income Tax Act deemed to have been Page 21

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

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

21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj.) Ashok Pal Daga v. CIT as reported in [1996] 220 ITR 452 (MP); CIT v. Metachem Industries as reported in [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP) CIT v. Mark Hospitals (P.) Ltd. as reported in [2015] 373 ITR 115 (Madras)(Mag.) 16. In view of the above discussion in the light of the judicial pronouncements (supra

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

House property u/s 54 Rs. 84,21,000/- (65,00,000/- plus 19,21,000) 7,00,000/- (Round off) cost of Repair” [Emphasis added] 5. However, the PCIT was not satisfied with the reply of assessee for the reasons mentioned by him in revision-order as under: “4. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE., INDORE vs. MP ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, M.P. Entertainment & 1(1), Developers Private Ltd., Indore. 94-101, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ C-21 Malls, Vs. Indore (Revenue /Appellant) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aaecm8668D Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024

21,35,712/- (rupees fifty crore twenty one lakhs thirty five thousand seven hundred twelve only) as "house property income" for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and determined "business / professional income" at Rs.6,63,59,504/- (rupees six crore sixty three lakhs fifty nine thousand five hundred four only) for the same Assessment Year. The CIT(A) has held that

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

property owned by appellant with his wife Smt. Sumitra Borad. There was a house on AS-28 and AH-29 was vacate. That initially the entire payment for Shaligram Borad construction of the original house was made by the appellant duly shown as the investment in the house in the balance sheet. During financial year 2014-15 relevant

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

21,85,420/ D/o Imran Khan 4 29.03.2013 Mr. Imran Khan (self) 69,55,000/- 5 29.03.2013 Faizan Khan (minor). 61,09,000/- S/o Imran Khan Total purchase value Rs.2,33,32,420 5.1 Thus, the assessee claimed that against the consideration as per the market value of Rs.2,55,00,000/- and long term capital gain of Rs.2

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

section 80-IB(10) of the Act. It is evidently clear that the appellant had acted merely as a contractor after selling the plots and not as a developer. Therefore, respectfully following the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal orders for A.Y. 2008-09, A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12, the appellant is not eligible

SHRI KAILASH BHAGWAN CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(3), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

21, Swami Vivekanand Nagar Vs. Near Telephone Nagar Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AIQPC8568F Appellant by Written submission Respondent by Shri V.J. Boricha, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 29.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-1, Indore dated 28.10.2016 pertaining

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

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 Page 7 of 16 Indore Pragtishil Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Mydt, Indore. Vs. I.T.Department, NFAC, Delhi -ITA No.317/Ind/2023 Assessment year 2018-19 limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area

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

MP STATE CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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

MP STATE COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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