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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

25 – relevant previous year the clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 23 would come in to operation and accordingly, the actual rent received shown by the appellant company in it books of account would alone have to be taken as the Annual Value of the house property

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

25 – relevant previous year the clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 23 would come in to operation and accordingly, the actual rent received shown by the appellant company in it books of account would alone have to be taken as the Annual Value of the house property

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 properties, however no income has been declared by the assessee. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax more than Rs 2,00,000/- has escaped assessment in term of explanation 2 of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of Income

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 properties, however no income has been declared by the assessee. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax more than Rs 2,00,000/- has escaped assessment in term of explanation 2 of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of Income

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 properties, however no income has been declared by the assessee. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax more than Rs 2,00,000/- has escaped assessment in term of explanation 2 of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of Income

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 properties, however no income has been declared by the assessee. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax more than Rs 2,00,000/- has escaped assessment in term of explanation 2 of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of Income

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 properties, however no income has been declared by the assessee. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax more than Rs 2,00,000/- has escaped assessment in term of explanation 2 of section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of Income

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 22 to 27 which make it clear that the expression for “house property” takes into account an independent residential unit. On this aspect, they have relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Vidya Prakash Talwar, reported in 25

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

25 years old and incurred a sum of Rs. 115000. The said house has been sold for a sum of Rs. 18750000 through a registered sale deed dated 18.03.2017. The copy of the sale deed was submitted before the Ld. A.O. and being submitted before your honor. Thus, the appellant offered a long-term capital gain

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

25. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee relates to the eligibility of the deduction u/s 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

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

25. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee relates to the eligibility of the deduction u/s 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

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

25. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee relates to the eligibility of the deduction u/s 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

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

25: 81 ITD 545(Mum) wherein the AO has held that sale consideration was not invested in specified assets and the assessee had diverted sale consideration of Rs. 3.55 crores to various partners and investment had been made in specified assets by borrowing an amount of Rs. 1.42 crores. The ITAT held that what the section requires is that

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

Housing Projects Ltd – [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 – order pronounced on 01.03.2012 – HEAD NOTE – “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 2004- 05 - Assessee sold an immovable property and claimed capital loss after indexation - Commissioner had doubts about valuation and sale consideration received but he had not examined said aspect

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

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

25,05,000 3,00,000 Self-occupied property at Old 4 1,50,000 Palasia Total 10,18,580 We find that copy of repayment schedule/ loan statement in respect of the loan taken from ICICI Bank Ltd. and State Bank of India have been filed on Page No. 161-174 of the paper book so as to justify

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

property at sale consideration of Rs.38,55,000/- on 17.09.2007 and purchased four residential plot on 15.11.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.35,25,450/- in joint names of assessee’s sister in law, Smt. Pritikanwar Singh. Application for consolidation of plot along with map was made on 24.12.2010 and permission was granted on 11.01.2011. No evidence is placed

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