DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

30,000/- and worked LTCG at Rs. 40,72,400/-. However, assessee deposited Rs. 62,00,000/- in capital gain account scheme in the bank. Subsequently assessee purchased a new residential house for Rs. 2,02,15,584/- on 19.08.2016, thus assessee has invested in new residential property more than the sale consideration adopted by the stamp duty valuation authorities

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

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

30,060/- as made by the Assessing Officer on account of unsecured loans received during the year by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was not justified and was 27 Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee filed requisite documentary evidences so as to justify

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

30-11-14 1.1 House 4157868 4376862 2476259 1.2 New House 0 0 4331991 5.3] That during the previous year relevant to the Asst Year 2014- 15, an amount of Rs 2,18,994/- was paid by the appellant towards permission fee for construction of the residential house. However, inadvertently the said amount was debited to the cost

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

30) taxmann.com 34 (Delhi). Paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment read as under:- “8. This Court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, that Section

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

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. ITO, 4(3), BHOPAL, OFFICE OF ITO BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Property Tax receipts for A.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and\n2018-19 (PB 120-123)\nc. An application in this regard is pressed before your honours. It is\ntherefore prayed that the additional evidences which are clinching\nevidences; and supporting the stand of the assessee that a\nresidential house was let out may kindly be taken on record

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

property owned by the Shri Hassanand Khemlani admeasuring 1381.68 Sq. meter was also fixed at Rs. 7.64,60,000/- 1.0. 55,324/- per Sq. mater which is not fair and correct. You have violated provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The AO did not examine these facts by conducting any enquiry

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

property owned by the Shri Hassanand Khemlani admeasuring 1381.68 Sq. meter was also fixed at Rs. 7.64,60,000/- 1.0. 55,324/- per Sq. mater which is not fair and correct. You have violated provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The AO did not examine these facts by conducting any enquiry

SANKALP SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisankalp Sakh Sahkari Pr. Cit-1 Sanstha Maryadit Indore 1, C/O Smriti Nagrik Sahkari Vs. Bank Dayamandir Road Goshala Market, Mandsaur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeas0312G Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2024

property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co- operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

housing units in the name of ‘The View’ near Laad Colony, Indore during F.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Assessing Officer noted that on examination during the course of search and seizure, the receipts of Rs.6,33,12,350/- as per registered sale deeds from sale of units in ‘The View’ project were not 6 Mohanlal Chugh

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

housing units in the name of ‘The View’ near Laad Colony, Indore during F.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Assessing Officer noted that on examination during the course of search and seizure, the receipts of Rs.6,33,12,350/- as per registered sale deeds from sale of units in ‘The View’ project were not 6 Mohanlal Chugh

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

housing units in the name of ‘The View’ near Laad Colony, Indore during F.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Assessing Officer noted that on examination during the course of search and seizure, the receipts of Rs.6,33,12,350/- as per registered sale deeds from sale of units in ‘The View’ project were not 6 Mohanlal Chugh

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

property and found there is only boundary wall with gate and on whole land there was little construction, with walls and Tin shed roofing and construction is about 700-800 Sq.ft as against 1504 Sq.ft. construction claimed by assessee. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order gave scanned photographs stated to have been taken by Inpsector on site visit. Page

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

section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2009-10, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: Original grounds raised in Form No. 36: 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO has made addition of Rs. 30,46,354/- as income from

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

property and found there is only boundary wall with gate and on whole land there was little construction, with walls and Tin shed roofing and construction is about 700-800 Sq.ft as against 1504 Sq.ft. construction claimed by assessee. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order gave scanned photographs stated to have been taken by Inpsector on site visit

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

30,132/- in the year consideration. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is allowed.” 10. Before us, the Ld. DR representing the revenue made a detailed submission and supported the action of Ld. AO and disagreed with the decision of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR started his pleadings by inviting our attention to the provision of section

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

30,132/- in the year consideration. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is allowed.” 10. Before us, the Ld. DR representing the revenue made a detailed submission and supported the action of Ld. AO and disagreed with the decision of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR started his pleadings by inviting our attention to the provision of section

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

30,132/- in the year consideration. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is allowed.” 10. Before us, the Ld. DR representing the revenue made a detailed submission and supported the action of Ld. AO and disagreed with the decision of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR started his pleadings by inviting our attention to the provision of section

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

30,132/- in the year consideration. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is allowed.” 10. Before us, the Ld. DR representing the revenue made a detailed submission and supported the action of Ld. AO and disagreed with the decision of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR started his pleadings by inviting our attention to the provision of section