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

section 234B of the income Tax Act. ITA No.26/Ind/2015/ Assessment Year 2007-08 : 1.1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the Ld CIT (A) erred in maintaining notional addition made by the assessing officer by taxing the annual letting value of the property under the head of Income from House

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

section 234B of the income Tax Act. ITA No.26/Ind/2015/ Assessment Year 2007-08 : 1.1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the Ld CIT (A) erred in maintaining notional addition made by the assessing officer by taxing the annual letting value of the property under the head of Income from House

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

section 234B of the income Tax Act. ITA No.26/Ind/2015/ Assessment Year 2007-08 : 1.1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the Ld CIT (A) erred in maintaining notional addition made by the assessing officer by taxing the annual letting value of the property under the head of Income from House

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

234B and 234C. III. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the grounds as may be required in the nature and circumstance of the case. Page 3 of 26 M/s. Balaji Sterling Builders ITA No.597/Ind/2016& ITANo.692/Ind/2018 Assessment year 2010-11 IV. The Appellant prays leave to adduce such further evidence to substantiate its case

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

Appeals are allowed

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

housing project as per section 80-IB(10) of the 1.T. Act", therefore disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-IB(10) of the I.T. Act by the appellant. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of interest u/s. 234B is unlawful and hence, be cancelled. 7. That the assessee

KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

234B and 234C is unlawful and, therefore, the said levy be kindly deleted.” 2. The brief facts are such that the assessee-individual submitted return of income for AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. 31,02,140/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine ‘large claim of exemption u/s 54B to 54GA

SHANKAR SEWANI,NEW MARKET vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

234B of the Act and therefore the said levy be cancelled.” 3. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act in pursuant to the search and seizure action in case of Signature Group. Ld. AR has submitted that it was not upon

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property, business etc.. 3.02.2 That, besides admitting the total undisclosed income of 15,89,76,375/-, as aforesaid, during the course of recording the another statement under s. 132(4), of real brother of the appellant namely Shri G.S. Bhatia on 26-10-2007 [kindly refer PB Page No. 43], Shri G.S. Bhatia, on the appellant's request

M/S. VAISHALI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(2), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

234B is unlawful, hence, be cancelled. 2. The ground no. 1 to ground no. 5 are basically relates to confirming of the finding of the AO that the assessee has merely acted as contractor after selling plot and not as a developer, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) on the profits claimed for the projects

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). In response thereto, the assessee made representation before the Assessing officer and filed the requisite details. However

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). In response thereto, the assessee made representation before the Assessing officer and filed the requisite details. However

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

234B(3) and without jurisdiction and therefore be cancelled. 7. We will first take up ITANo.90/Ind/2019. Through this appeal assessee has raised various grounds including the additional 7 Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 grounds challenging the finding of ld. CIT(A) cancelling the registration 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act, treating the assessee as carrying out business

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

234B(3) and without jurisdiction and therefore be cancelled. 7. We will first take up ITANo.90/Ind/2019. Through this appeal assessee has raised various grounds including the additional 7 Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 grounds challenging the finding of ld. CIT(A) cancelling the registration 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act, treating the assessee as carrying out business

ABHISHEK DHANOTIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

234B and 234(. 9.The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal. [ITA No.655/Ind/2018] [Abhishek Dhanotia ] 2.The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was reopened on the ground that the information was received from the DCIT Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai that during the search

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

234B of the Act. 7. on the facts and circumstances or the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. 8. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in withdrawing the interest under section 244A of the act. It is prayed

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

234B of the Act. 7. on the facts and circumstances or the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. 8. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in withdrawing the interest under section 244A of the act. It is prayed

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

234B of the Act. 7. on the facts and circumstances or the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act. 8. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in withdrawing the interest under section 244A of the act. It is prayed

SUDHA LUHADIA,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE ITO - 4(5), INDORE, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the impugned order is upheld

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisudha Luhadia, Indore The Ito-4(5), बनाम/ C/O S.V. Agrawal & Indore Vs. Associates, 25, Joy Builders Colony, Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Mp) (Pan: Abapl5445M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

234B, 2340 of the IT Act are Charged as appropriate. Tax Charged at the rate prescribed u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. Tax and interest are payable as per ITNS 150, which is a part of this order. Penalty proceedings Notice u/s 271AAC issued.” Sudha Luhadia ITANo.546/Ind/2025 2.3 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order