BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

property. It is immaterial if such purchase has been evidenced by a registered deed or not. Merely on account of absence of registered sale deed, the assessee should not be disentitled to exemption under Section 54F. The same has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal v. CIT (2014) 46 taxmann 300/ 225 taxmann

MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

property and found there is only boundary wall with gate and on whole land there was little construction, with walls and Tin shed roofing and construction is about 700-800 Sq.ft as against 1504 Sq.ft. construction claimed by Page 26 of 29 Maa Narmada Agrotech and Infratures Ltd. Page 27 of 29 assessee. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order gave

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

property and found there is only boundary wall with gate and on whole land there was little construction, with walls and Tin shed roofing and construction is about 700-800 Sq.ft as against 1504 Sq.ft. construction claimed by assessee. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order gave scanned photographs stated to have been taken by Inpsector on site visit. Page

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

property and found there is only boundary wall with gate and on whole land there was little construction, with walls and Tin shed roofing and construction is about 700-800 Sq.ft as against 1504 Sq.ft. construction claimed by assessee. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order gave scanned photographs stated to have been taken by Inpsector on site visit

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito, Kalra, 1(1), बनाम/ Agar Road, Ujjain Ganesh Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

211 (Karnataka HC), by way of a compilation. Lastly, Ld. AR also submitted that there were three owners (including assessee) in the newly purchased two properties; therefore one can safely conclude that one person is owner of one property only. Ld. AR submitted that the revenue authorities should take a practical and holistic view of assessee’s case and should

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

211 (Ahd.)? 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,27,923/- on account of income from house property, relying upon documents statements of the firm furnished by the assessee before CIT(A) as additional evidence, without providing any opportunity to be assessing officer

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

211 (Ahd.)? 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,27,923/- on account of income from house property, relying upon documents statements of the firm furnished by the assessee before CIT(A) as additional evidence, without providing any opportunity to be assessing officer

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

211 hamals and how could the AO assume that such a large number would be permanent employees of assessee? Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has judiciously considered the factual position of assessee and deleted the disallowance, his order is a proper order and no interference is required. 11. Ld. AR also pointed out that all payment-vouchers

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

211 hamals and how could the AO assume that such a large number would be permanent employees of assessee? Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has judiciously considered the factual position of assessee and deleted the disallowance, his order is a proper order and no interference is required. 11. Ld. AR also pointed out that all payment-vouchers

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

211 hamals and how could the AO assume that such a large number would be permanent employees of assessee? Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has judiciously considered the factual position of assessee and deleted the disallowance, his order is a proper order and no interference is required. 11. Ld. AR also pointed out that all payment-vouchers

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

property. E- M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. return of income filed on 27.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs.51,72,569/- which comprises of depreciation loss at Rs.1,53,066/- and business loss of Rs.50,19,503/-. Case selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS for the reason ‘large unsecured loans’. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act duly served upon

SMT NAYANA JAYESH PATEL ,INDORE vs. ACIT ( OSD ) , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninayana Jayesh Patel Pr. Cit 29/5, South Tukoganj Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afypp 2075H Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02 .08.2023

211 TTJ 823 / 203 DTR 103 (Kol.)(Trib.) and has also relied upon the decision of the Raipur Bench of this Tribunal in case of Mahabir Prasad Ajirma v. PCIT 213 TTJ 610/206 DTR 361 (Raipur)(Trib.) 5. Ld. AR has submitted that the AO has finalized the assessment order after accepting assessee’s computation of capital gain

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question. 17. This distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising jurisdiction under Section

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

house is actually beyond understanding and uncalled for. That the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate this very important aspect. That, in response to the producing of receipts of the donation the same numbering 200 were filed before the Assessing Officer. Receipts are enclosed at page no. 03 to 205 of the paper book. However, the filing or not filing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

house is actually beyond understanding and uncalled for. That the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate this very important aspect. That, in response to the producing of receipts of the donation the same numbering 200 were filed before the Assessing Officer. Receipts are enclosed at page no. 03 to 205 of the paper book. However, the filing or not filing

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

211-212 of Paper Book for A.Y. 2016- 17 4 Creditworthin All the lender First para Audited The CIT(A) has given a ess of the companies were having at page no. Balance clear finding to this lender ample of funds as per 49 of her Sheets are effect at para (3.3.6) companies not their respective Audited Order. furnished page

DCIT , CENTRAL -2 , INDORE vs. M/S GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

211-212 of Paper Book for A.Y. 2016- 17 4 Creditworthin All the lender First para Audited The CIT(A) has given a ess of the companies were having at page no. Balance clear finding to this lender ample of funds as per 49 of her Sheets are effect at para (3.3.6) companies not their respective Audited Order. furnished page

MR.VINEET SHRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( IT&TP), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimr. Vineet Shrivastava Ito (It & Tp) E-7/795, Arera Colony Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bcxps 2544 H Assessee By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023

211 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. 2. We have heard Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR on the condonation of delay. The Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the AO without giving effect to the directions of the DRP dated

M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Ayushajay Construction Pr.Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore. बनाम/ 3/3, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacca 5523 B Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Cas Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2024

211/- during financial year 2017-18 relevant to AY 2018-19 under consideration but it was not assessee’s own money because of pendency of matter before Dhule District Court. Ultimately, when Dhule District Court dismissed/disposed of Govt’s Misc. Application on 15.10.2018, the assessee became rightful owner of the amount and immediately declared income in AY 2019-20. Same