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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

House Property', then it has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of ss. 22 & 23 of the Act. Under the provisions of sub-section

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

House Property', then it has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of ss. 22 & 23 of the Act. Under the provisions of sub-section

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’. 6. The Assessing Officer, however, asked the assessee to explain why property known as West Tower be not fixed on its annual letting value as per which section 23

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’. 6. The Assessing Officer, however, asked the assessee to explain why property known as West Tower be not fixed on its annual letting value as per which section 23

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’. 6. The Assessing Officer, however, asked the assessee to explain why property known as West Tower be not fixed on its annual letting value as per which section 23

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’. 6. The Assessing Officer, however, asked the assessee to explain why property known as West Tower be not fixed on its annual letting value as per which section 23

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’. 6. The Assessing Officer, however, asked the assessee to explain why property known as West Tower be not fixed on its annual letting value as per which section 23

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

23. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has made following written submissions in support of his contention that the rental income from the said unsold immoveable property is being regularly shown under the head income from house property 25 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 and deduction u/s 24 of the Act have been claimed consistently. In the subsequent years

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

23. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has made following written submissions in support of his contention that the rental income from the said unsold immoveable property is being regularly shown under the head income from house property 25 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 and deduction u/s 24 of the Act have been claimed consistently. In the subsequent years

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

23. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has made following written submissions in support of his contention that the rental income from the said unsold immoveable property is being regularly shown under the head income from house property 25 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 and deduction u/s 24 of the Act have been claimed consistently. In the subsequent years

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

23 taxmann.com 94 (Ahmedabad –Trib) where the assessee has started construction Shri Sushil Kumar Bafna, Ujjain v. ITO-1(1) /I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014/A.Y.:10-11 Page 10 of 24 of residential house before the date of transfer of capital asset, however, same was completed within prescribed time limit of three years from the date of transfer, assessee`s claim

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

property & not; other than the new asset. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (i) "long-term capital asset " means a capital asset which is not a short-term capital asset,· (ii) "net consideration ", in relation to the transfer of a capital asset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

23,89,533/- against Rs.28,59,057/- made by the AO in respect of Long Term Capital Gains. 4. Now the assessee has preferred the present appeal. Ground No.1 to 4 are against rejecting of claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act, therefore, all the grounds are being disposed of together. Ground No.5 is general in nature thus

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

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

House property and Rs 9,15,600/- was claimed from Income from Other sources. 6.3] The assessee has utilised its interest bearing funds for advancing to different parties and interest income was earned from the same. The assessee had claimed deduction to the extent of Interest received. Hence, claim of deduction of Interest against the interest income of the assessee

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. The assessee is neither the owner nor the seller of the land on which project is claimed to have been undertaken. • The assessee is merely acting as a contractor to the customers to whom land has been sold. • No registry whatsoever is being made for the construction work done by the assessee. No new residential property is being

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), the entirety of project including development of infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR, ‘entire project’ would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes the construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the case of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from assessee through registered Sale-Deeds

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 construction of residential house on the said land. The AO, thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) dated 14.07.2017 along with a questionnaire. These facts are also evident from the assessment order in para 1 and 2 as under :- " Thereafter, the case was transferred to the office of the undersigned from the ITO Ward 4(1) Jaipur