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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

29. Admittedly, the AO has made estimation of rent on ALV upon invocation of provisions of Section 23 of the Act which can only be invoked if the income is computed under Section 22 of the Act. As we have already seen in the earlier ground that the income from leasing out of properties in the mall has been held

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

29. Admittedly, the AO has made estimation of rent on ALV upon invocation of provisions of Section 23 of the Act which can only be invoked if the income is computed under Section 22 of the Act. As we have already seen in the earlier ground that the income from leasing out of properties in the mall has been held

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

29 of 66 for assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to not allowing deduction of interest out of notional income from house property. These grounds relate to assessing the income from house property, hence, the same are being considered together. 14. The assessee in the present grounds of appeal have challenged the taxability of income under the head

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

29 of 66 for assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to not allowing deduction of interest out of notional income from house property. These grounds relate to assessing the income from house property, hence, the same are being considered together. 14. The assessee in the present grounds of appeal have challenged the taxability of income under the head

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

29 of 66 for assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to not allowing deduction of interest out of notional income from house property. These grounds relate to assessing the income from house property, hence, the same are being considered together. 14. The assessee in the present grounds of appeal have challenged the taxability of income under the head

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

29 of 66 for assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to not allowing deduction of interest out of notional income from house property. These grounds relate to assessing the income from house property, hence, the same are being considered together. 14. The assessee in the present grounds of appeal have challenged the taxability of income under the head

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

29 of 66 for assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to not allowing deduction of interest out of notional income from house property. These grounds relate to assessing the income from house property, hence, the same are being considered together. 14. The assessee in the present grounds of appeal have challenged the taxability of income under the head

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 147 of the Act upon filing her return of income showing total income of Rs. 19,740/-: Computation of Capital Gains Sale Consideration received Rs. 29,00,000 Market Value of the property sold Rs. 42,52,000 PARTICULARA SALES MARKET VALUE CONSIDERATION 50% share in house

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

Section 9. The character of that income was not altered because it was received by the company formed with the object of developing and setting up markets”. 26. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Azimganj Estate Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT held that “in the case of property builder and developer assessee-rental income from unsold

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

Section 9. The character of that income was not altered because it was received by the company formed with the object of developing and setting up markets”. 26. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Azimganj Estate Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT held that “in the case of property builder and developer assessee-rental income from unsold

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

Section 9. The character of that income was not altered because it was received by the company formed with the object of developing and setting up markets”. 26. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Azimganj Estate Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT held that “in the case of property builder and developer assessee-rental income from unsold

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

29 which was a joint property owned by appellant with his wife Smt. Sumitra Borad. There was a house on AS-28 and AH-29 was vacate. That initially the entire payment for Shaligram Borad construction of the original house was made by the appellant duly shown as the investment in the house in the balance sheet. During financial year

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

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

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURE 21 MALL PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

29-4-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the premises of assessee and simultaneous survey actions at various business premises of other group concerns. The assessee belonged to the “M.P. Bullion” group of cases

THE DCIT-2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. CENTURY 21 MALL (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

29-4-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the premises of assessee and simultaneous survey actions at various business premises of other group concerns. The assessee belonged to the “M.P. Bullion” group of cases

M/S CENTURY 21 MALLS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, while all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

29-4-2016 against order under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. All these appeals have arisen consequent upon search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 carried out at the premises of assessee and simultaneous survey actions at various business premises of other group concerns. The assessee belonged to the “M.P. Bullion” group of cases

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