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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23 of the Act by the Ld. AO is bad in law and thus liable to be quashed in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as above is according to us is just and proper so as to warrant interference. With the above observations, we conclude that

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

Section 23 of the Act by the Ld. AO is bad in law and thus liable to be quashed in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as above is according to us is just and proper so as to warrant interference. With the above observations, we conclude that

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” on notional basis. The assessee company is running coaching classes in its building and the said building constructed on its leasehold plot was also used by Jasleen Educational Service Society for running of school in the name of Auckland Academy. That in the year under consideration coaching income was very less but in last three to four years

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” on notional basis. The assessee company is running coaching classes in its building and the said building constructed on its leasehold plot was also used by Jasleen Educational Service Society for running of school in the name of Auckland Academy. That in the year under consideration coaching income was very less but in last three to four years

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” on notional basis. The assessee company is running coaching classes in its building and the said building constructed on its leasehold plot was also used by Jasleen Educational Service Society for running of school in the name of Auckland Academy. That in the year under consideration coaching income was very less but in last three to four years

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” on notional basis. The assessee company is running coaching classes in its building and the said building constructed on its leasehold plot was also used by Jasleen Educational Service Society for running of school in the name of Auckland Academy. That in the year under consideration coaching income was very less but in last three to four years

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” on notional basis. The assessee company is running coaching classes in its building and the said building constructed on its leasehold plot was also used by Jasleen Educational Service Society for running of school in the name of Auckland Academy. That in the year under consideration coaching income was very less but in last three to four 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

250/- 3 K.K. Patel Finance Ltd 30,00,000/- 1,05,000/- 4 East West Finvest India 30,00,000/- 1,44,750/- Ltd 1,25,00,000/- 5,55,875/- Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 Addition of Rs.6,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2007-08 for procuring loans. 13. From the perusal of the assessment order

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

250/- 3 K.K. Patel Finance Ltd 30,00,000/- 1,05,000/- 4 East West Finvest India 30,00,000/- 1,44,750/- Ltd 1,25,00,000/- 5,55,875/- Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 Addition of Rs.6,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2007-08 for procuring loans. 13. From the perusal of the assessment order

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

250/- 3 K.K. Patel Finance Ltd 30,00,000/- 1,05,000/- 4 East West Finvest India 30,00,000/- 1,44,750/- Ltd 1,25,00,000/- 5,55,875/- Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 Addition of Rs.6,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2007-08 for procuring loans. 13. From the perusal of the assessment order

BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under

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

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is Page 11 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024- AY: 2015-16 duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from

THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI VINOD VAISH, BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement

SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement

SHRI KAMLESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement