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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250 6,23,437 11,57,813 The depreciation Leasing cannot be allowed on the entire constructed building but it has to be restricted to the occupancy level. Accordingly, based upon occupancy level of 35% depreciation has been restricted. 3 Other 61,68,189 61,51,850 16,339 No reason assigned Assets (Furniture & Fixtures Plant & Machineries and Computers) Total

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

250 6,23,437 11,57,813 The depreciation Leasing cannot be allowed on the entire constructed building but it has to be restricted to the occupancy level. Accordingly, based upon occupancy level of 35% depreciation has been restricted. 3 Other 61,68,189 61,51,850 16,339 No reason assigned Assets (Furniture & Fixtures Plant & Machineries and Computers) Total

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

6 DTR 318. (Ahm. I.T.A.T. ) M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 26 of 66 (iii) K. G. Hotel (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, 113 ITR 99 (I.T.A.T. Agra Bench) (iv) CIT vs. Orient Craft Limited, I.T.A.No. 555/2012 dated 12.12.2012 (Del) (v) A.N.Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO,(1958) 34 ITR 275 (S.C.) (vi) Sheo Nath Singh

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

6 DTR 318. (Ahm. I.T.A.T. ) M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 26 of 66 (iii) K. G. Hotel (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, 113 ITR 99 (I.T.A.T. Agra Bench) (iv) CIT vs. Orient Craft Limited, I.T.A.No. 555/2012 dated 12.12.2012 (Del) (v) A.N.Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO,(1958) 34 ITR 275 (S.C.) (vi) Sheo Nath Singh

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

6 DTR 318. (Ahm. I.T.A.T. ) M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 26 of 66 (iii) K. G. Hotel (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, 113 ITR 99 (I.T.A.T. Agra Bench) (iv) CIT vs. Orient Craft Limited, I.T.A.No. 555/2012 dated 12.12.2012 (Del) (v) A.N.Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO,(1958) 34 ITR 275 (S.C.) (vi) Sheo Nath Singh

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

6 DTR 318. (Ahm. I.T.A.T. ) M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 26 of 66 (iii) K. G. Hotel (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, 113 ITR 99 (I.T.A.T. Agra Bench) (iv) CIT vs. Orient Craft Limited, I.T.A.No. 555/2012 dated 12.12.2012 (Del) (v) A.N.Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO,(1958) 34 ITR 275 (S.C.) (vi) Sheo Nath Singh

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

6 DTR 318. (Ahm. I.T.A.T. ) M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 26 of 66 (iii) K. G. Hotel (P) Ltd vs. ACIT, 113 ITR 99 (I.T.A.T. Agra Bench) (iv) CIT vs. Orient Craft Limited, I.T.A.No. 555/2012 dated 12.12.2012 (Del) (v) A.N.Lakshman Shenoy v. ITO,(1958) 34 ITR 275 (S.C.) (vi) Sheo Nath Singh

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

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

6 Bharat Shah house in India (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

250 (Kar.). 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”[Emphasis Supplied] Amit Tiwari 1.4.7] The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

6) and 194C(7) need to be read together and once there is violation of section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made for unexplained cash credits

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

6) and 194C(7) need to be read together and once there is violation of section 194C disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is attracted ? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made for unexplained cash credits

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

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

250 of the Act, my regular counsel asked me to pay the challan for appeal fees immediately and accordingly the present appeal is being filed without any further delay. Page 2 of 14 ITANo.328/Ind/2023 Ram Babu Singh 3. Thus the assessee has explained the cause of delay that notices issued by CIT(A) as well as the impugned order were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

6 LALITA W/O 2009-10 381 2025 344,250 170.00 SURESH KABRA TOTAL 2009-10 7925 370650 7 DEVI KISHAN 2011-12 120 2400 408,000 170.00 SHARMA 8 DR. SHAILESH 2011-12 124 & 5400 511,000 94.63 J.N. PRASAD 125 9 PRAJUN S/O 2011-12 485 3700 45,500 12.30 RAJENNDRA SONI 10 PUSHPA