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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding that income derived by the company from leasing out properties in the mall falls under the head income from business and not under the head from income from house property, relying on Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the cases

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding that income derived by the company from leasing out properties in the mall falls under the head income from business and not under the head from income from house property, relying on Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the cases

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

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding that income derived by the company from leasing out properties in the mall falls under the head income from business and not under the head from income from house property, relying on Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the cases

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding that income derived by the company from leasing out properties in the mall falls under the head income from business and not under the head from income from house property, relying on Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the cases

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

1 Income from House Property 13,88,612 2 Disallowance out of Expenses 3,35,652 3 Disallowance of Depreciation of Building 5,72,905 22,97,169 6. The Ld. CIT[A] vide his order dated 31-10-2014 has dismissed the appeal as filed by the assessee against the order as passed U/s 143[3]/147

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

1 Income from House Property 13,88,612 2 Disallowance out of Expenses 3,35,652 3 Disallowance of Depreciation of Building 5,72,905 22,97,169 6. The Ld. CIT[A] vide his order dated 31-10-2014 has dismissed the appeal as filed by the assessee against the order as passed U/s 143[3]/147

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

1 Income from House Property 13,88,612 2 Disallowance out of Expenses 3,35,652 3 Disallowance of Depreciation of Building 5,72,905 22,97,169 6. The Ld. CIT[A] vide his order dated 31-10-2014 has dismissed the appeal as filed by the assessee against the order as passed U/s 143[3]/147

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

1 Income from House Property 13,88,612 2 Disallowance out of Expenses 3,35,652 3 Disallowance of Depreciation of Building 5,72,905 22,97,169 6. The Ld. CIT[A] vide his order dated 31-10-2014 has dismissed the appeal as filed by the assessee against the order as passed U/s 143[3]/147

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

1 Income from House Property 13,88,612 2 Disallowance out of Expenses 3,35,652 3 Disallowance of Depreciation of Building 5,72,905 22,97,169 6. The Ld. CIT[A] vide his order dated 31-10-2014 has dismissed the appeal as filed by the assessee against the order as passed U/s 143[3]/147

SHRI NARAYAN DAS TOLANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

house which was over and above the cost of construction. While completing the assessment, the AO has made an addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on this account. Upon due consideration of the matter, it is held that the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been rightly made over and above the addition on account of the difference

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

house Taxable capital gain 1,86,107 32,32,461 Page 3 of 11 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(4), Bhopal ITA No. 208/Ind/2022 – AY 2009-10 Aggrieved, the assessee carried mater in first appeal but did not get any relief. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. Ld. AR for assessee drew

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

1 964 : he realised a capital gain of Rs. 42,550; he invested an amount more than the amount of this capital gain in the construction of a house property which was completed within a period of two years after that date; and the house property so completed was admittedly used by the assessee for the purposes

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

3. There is a difference between "making a surplus" and running the institution for 'profit'. The former should not be mistook for later. 4. If the surplus arises incidentally after meeting the expenditure, it will not cease to be one existing solely for educational purpose. 16 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. 5. In overall view, the object is the 'profit

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

3. There is a difference between "making a surplus" and running the institution for 'profit'. The former should not be mistook for later. 4. If the surplus arises incidentally after meeting the expenditure, it will not cease to be one existing solely for educational purpose. 16 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. 5. In overall view, the object is the 'profit