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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House 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

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 property M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24

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 property M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24

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 property M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24

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 property M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24

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

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 property M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24

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

24 of the Act @30% from rental income from house property. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and some part of the constructed area which remain unsold were being rented out. The rented immoveable properties are included in the closing stock of the Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 company. Now whether the rental income

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

24 of the Act @30% from rental income from house property. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and some part of the constructed area which remain unsold were being rented out. The rented immoveable properties are included in the closing stock of the Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 company. Now whether the rental income

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

24 of the Act @30% from rental income from house property. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and some part of the constructed area which remain unsold were being rented out. The rented immoveable properties are included in the closing stock of the Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 company. Now whether the rental income

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

house property. Wordings of section 54 itself make it clear that the law does not insist that sale consideration should Shri Sushil Kumar Bafna, Ujjain v. ITO-1(1) /I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014/A.Y.:10-11 Page 14 of 24

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. In the present case, the matter is related to depreciation. In view of the above the referred case laws do not relate to the present case. It is also to be pertinent to mention here that the assessee has not relied any case law related to disallowance of interest. 3.5 In view of the discussions held in aforementioned

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

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

24,76,259/- in the file of the appellant as on 30.11.2014. 5.5] The said house situated at AH 28 has been demolished by appellant in A.Y. 2014-15 and he has started the construction of a new residential house on and same along with adjoining plot AH29 Sukhliya. The Appellant has also taken permission for construction of new 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

property, but are only examining whether for the purpose of benefit under Section 80IB (10) of the Act, the assessee could be considered as the owner of the land in question. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), and in the case of Commissioner of Income

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

24-4-2006 has dismissed the appeal, while observing as under:- "The issue before us revolves around allowability of deduction under sections 54B and 54F of the Act. The land in question was purchased by the assessee in the name of his son. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction on the ground that the land is in the name

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

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

house in the name of a stranger or somebody who is unconnected with him. He has purchased it only in the name of his wife. There is also no dispute that the entire investment has come out of the sale proceeds, and that there was no contribution from the assessee's wife. 10. Having regard to the rule of purposive