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

5, held that the identical to that of held that merely because main object of the Chennai Properties & income is attached to assessee in its MOA : Rayala Corporation. The any immovable property was to acquire & hold assessee company has cannot be the sole factor for properties and to let out been incorporated with assessment of such income as such properties

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

5, held that the identical to that of held that merely because main object of the Chennai Properties & income is attached to assessee in its MOA : Rayala Corporation. The any immovable property was to acquire & hold assessee company has cannot be the sole factor for properties and to let out been incorporated with assessment of such income as such properties

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

property income u/s 23 of the Act. Moreso, when the provision of section 22 to 27 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessee company was not the owner of land but Individual family members of the Luthra family was the actual owners of the land and the assessee company has taken land on lease from

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

property income u/s 23 of the Act. Moreso, when the provision of section 22 to 27 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessee company was not the owner of land but Individual family members of the Luthra family was the actual owners of the land and the assessee company has taken land on lease from

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

property income u/s 23 of the Act. Moreso, when the provision of section 22 to 27 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessee company was not the owner of land but Individual family members of the Luthra family was the actual owners of the land and the assessee company has taken land on lease from

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

property income u/s 23 of the Act. Moreso, when the provision of section 22 to 27 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessee company was not the owner of land but Individual family members of the Luthra family was the actual owners of the land and the assessee company has taken land on lease from

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

property income u/s 23 of the Act. Moreso, when the provision of section 22 to 27 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessee company was not the owner of land but Individual family members of the Luthra family was the actual owners of the land and the assessee company has taken land on lease from

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

5 ( Hyderabad-Trib) / [2013] 27 ITR (T) 63/ 56 SOT 473(Hyd) when it was held that where amount of capital gains claimed as exempted under section 54F is not utilized in construction of residential house within period of 3 years , it will be charged to capital gains in the year in which period of 3 years expires, however, exemption

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

5. Thus, twin conditions required to invoke the provisions of section 263 i.e. order should be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue are not satisfied. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made, judicial precedents and documents on record, appeal of the assessee be allowed. 7. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently opposed

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

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

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

23,22,237/-. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 29. The above view of the Chennai Bench was also followed by the Co-ordinate Bench Ahmedabad in the case of Sadbhav Engineering Ltd V/s DCIT (2013) 38 CCH 0105 (supra) observing as follows:- “13. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

23,22,237/-. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 29. The above view of the Chennai Bench was also followed by the Co-ordinate Bench Ahmedabad in the case of Sadbhav Engineering Ltd V/s DCIT (2013) 38 CCH 0105 (supra) observing as follows:- “13. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

23,22,237/-. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 29. The above view of the Chennai Bench was also followed by the Co-ordinate Bench Ahmedabad in the case of Sadbhav Engineering Ltd V/s DCIT (2013) 38 CCH 0105 (supra) observing as follows:- “13. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

23,22,237/-. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 29. The above view of the Chennai Bench was also followed by the Co-ordinate Bench Ahmedabad in the case of Sadbhav Engineering Ltd V/s DCIT (2013) 38 CCH 0105 (supra) observing as follows:- “13. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record