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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property under the provisions of section 23 of the Act. For our above assertion, we place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements : i) ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi (2013) 35

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

house property under the provisions of section 23 of the Act. For our above assertion, we place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements : i) ACIT vs. Dr. Prabha Sanghi (2013) 35

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 of Rs 19,83,732/- without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 2.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional income on account of Building used for the purpose of running of the school

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 of Rs 19,83,732/- without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 2.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional income on account of Building used for the purpose of running of the school

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 of Rs 19,83,732/- without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 2.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional income on account of Building used for the purpose of running of the school

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 of Rs 19,83,732/- without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 2.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional income on account of Building used for the purpose of running of the school

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 of Rs 19,83,732/- without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 2.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional income on account of Building used for the purpose of running of the school

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

35,50,000/- 16 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 The same wordings are given in the subsequent assessment years for making the addition of Cash Credit." 14.The Ld, CITCA) has deleted the addition by observing that addition is warranted In the hands of lenders and not in the hands of the assessee, otherwise it will amount to double

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

35,50,000/- 16 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 The same wordings are given in the subsequent assessment years for making the addition of Cash Credit." 14.The Ld, CITCA) has deleted the addition by observing that addition is warranted In the hands of lenders and not in the hands of the assessee, otherwise it will amount to double

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

35,50,000/- 16 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 The same wordings are given in the subsequent assessment years for making the addition of Cash Credit." 14.The Ld, CITCA) has deleted the addition by observing that addition is warranted In the hands of lenders and not in the hands of the assessee, otherwise it will amount to double

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

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

35,67,618/-, deduction for Rs 26,52,018/- was claimed from the Income from 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

SHANKAR SEWANI,NEW MARKET vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Shankar Sewani, Dcit-1(1), 10 Kala Niketan, Bhopal New Market, Vs. T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adkps6959H Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024 O R D E R

house) for Rs.1,35,00,000/-. The assessee has submitted copy of registered deed of sale of property and purchase of property. The property was jointly purchased in FY 200-04 for a consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-. The reply of the AR has been considered. The assessee has duly offered the capital gain on the aforesaid property

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE., INDORE vs. MP ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, M.P. Entertainment & 1(1), Developers Private Ltd., Indore. 94-101, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ C-21 Malls, Vs. Indore (Revenue /Appellant) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aaecm8668D Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024

35,712/- (rupees fifty crore twenty one lakhs thirty five thousand seven hundred twelve only) as "house property income" for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and determined "business / professional income" at Rs.6,63,59,504/- (rupees six crore sixty three lakhs fifty nine thousand five hundred four only) for the same Assessment Year. The CIT(A) has held that rental

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

35 CCH 450 (MumTrib) has held that the assessee certainly derived some right in the property, legal or otherwise, the same have to be regarded as tenancy rights within the meaning of s. 55(2). In the instant case too, even if the right of tenancy by the appellant is held as illegal by the AO, then too, the amount

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)

section 50C of the Act. 33 Mohanlal Chugh & others Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We find ourselves in full agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action

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)

section 50C of the Act. 33 Mohanlal Chugh & others Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We find ourselves in full agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action

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)

section 50C of the Act. 33 Mohanlal Chugh & others Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We find ourselves in full agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action