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

properties in the mall has been held to be chargeable to tax under the head “Income from Business or Profession” under Section 28 of the Act which has also been confirmed by us, the rental income estimated under the provision of Section 23 of the Act by the Ld. AO is bad in law and thus liable to be quashed

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

properties in the mall has been held to be chargeable to tax under the head “Income from Business or Profession” under Section 28 of the Act which has also been confirmed by us, the rental income estimated under the provision of Section 23 of the Act by the Ld. AO is bad in law and thus liable to be quashed

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 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 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

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

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

house. On that basis it has been decided already by the different forums that the assessee under this situation is liable for exemption under Section 54 of the Act. We accept the proposition made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above judgment to this effect that this section takes into account all independent residential units particularly

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

31 July, 2019 Conclusion: Though assessee had not become owner of property in question because there was no registered sale deed executed by vendor, however, becoming the owner of the property in question was not required for the purpose of section 54/54F and, therefore, no deduction could be denied to assessee. Copy of Judgement which is squarely applicable

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

31,898/- Finvest India Ltd Purvi 4,47,67,000/- 63,229/- 20,62,494/- Finvest Ltd Trimurti 3,60,00,000/- 3,08,99,041/- 21,23,021/- Finvest Pvt. Ltd K.K. Patel 89,32,500/- 61,43,922/- 26,73,752/- 20.Merely on the basis of returned income, the Assessing Officer jumped to the conclusion that these lenders

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

31,898/- Finvest India Ltd Purvi 4,47,67,000/- 63,229/- 20,62,494/- Finvest Ltd Trimurti 3,60,00,000/- 3,08,99,041/- 21,23,021/- Finvest Pvt. Ltd K.K. Patel 89,32,500/- 61,43,922/- 26,73,752/- 20.Merely on the basis of returned income, the Assessing Officer jumped to the conclusion that these lenders

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

31,898/- Finvest India Ltd Purvi 4,47,67,000/- 63,229/- 20,62,494/- Finvest Ltd Trimurti 3,60,00,000/- 3,08,99,041/- 21,23,021/- Finvest Pvt. Ltd K.K. Patel 89,32,500/- 61,43,922/- 26,73,752/- 20.Merely on the basis of returned income, the Assessing Officer jumped to the conclusion that these lenders

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

31,991/- which also includes Rs 218994/- as paid for sanction of MAP The expenses incurred were for construction of new house after demolition of the old house. Hence, the appellant was rightly eligible to claim deduction under Shaligram Borad section 54F of the Act The Ld Pr CIT merely on the basis of amount as reflected in the Balance

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

31,83,580/- after making three disallowances, namely (i) disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 14,10,480/-, (ii) disallowance of depreciation u/s 32(1) of Rs. 2,10,80,516/- and (iii) disallowance of interest u/s 37(1) of Rs. 90,33,182/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) qua these disallowances

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. It is immaterial if such purchase has been evidenced by a registered deed or not. Merely on account of absence of registered sale deed, the assessee should not be disentitled to exemption under Section 54F. The same has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal v. CIT (2014) 46 taxmann 300/ 225 taxmann

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

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 54 of the Income-tax Act. In the present case, in fact, the capital gain is Rs. 51,980 ; whereas the first 7 Shivcharan Singh instalment towards the flat from the Delhi Development Authority was Rs. 71,256, i.e., much more than the capital gains. The Central Board of Direct Taxes also issued Circular

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 Act, the appellant firm was clearly the owner of the land. Hence the assessing officer erred in her belief that the appellant firm was not the owner of the land. (Copy of the agreement dated 30.11.2006 is enclosed as Annexure 1). Be that as it may, it is submitted that the provisions of section 80IB(10) do not require