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

37,87,234/- (ii) Deduction u/s 24(b) 85,69,355/- 3,23,56,589/- Income from house property 4,69,34,191/- 5.2 Since, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated in the matter.” 27. Before

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

37,87,234/- (ii) Deduction u/s 24(b) 85,69,355/- 3,23,56,589/- Income from house property 4,69,34,191/- 5.2 Since, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated in the matter.” 27. Before

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 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) 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 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), 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

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

37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and both were added to the total income of the assessee and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated separately on both disallowances for filing inaccurate particulars of income. 3.1 The AO has found that the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 2,10,80,516/- on building, furniture, fixture, electrical installation

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

37,560/- declared in the e-return filed on 27.07.2013. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings Ld. AO noticed that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act at Rs.79,09,572/- and also claimed transfer of property

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

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

37,10,000/- considered for the purpose of addition made under Section 68 of the Act, stood reconciled against different sale deeds executed by the assessee. Once registered sale deeds had been executed by the assessee and the cash credit entries found standing in the books of account of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

37 ITR 0001 Business expenditure-Conditions for allowing deduction of expenses-Assessee engaged in the Business of land and property development-Assessee following mercantile system of accounting-Expenditure actually incurred but not during the relevant year is still allowable if such expenditure was incidental to the carrying on of the business. Facts The assessee deals in land and property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

37 ITR 0001 Business expenditure-Conditions for allowing deduction of expenses-Assessee engaged in the Business of land and property development-Assessee following mercantile system of accounting-Expenditure actually incurred but not during the relevant year is still allowable if such expenditure was incidental to the carrying on of the business. Facts The assessee deals in land and property

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

37,000/- is payable before 30th June 2007 and construction cost is payable as per schedule given herewith in clause No. 4. XXX WHEREAS The second party after completing the construction and receiving the full amount of consideration will hand over the possession of the land and the house to the second party. WHEREAS The second party will not claim

NEERA KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

37. Thus, the property on the date of transfer i.e. 02.01.2015 was not owned by assessee. Later on the agreement was cancelled due to insolvency proceedings of Seller and Builder – M/s AG8 Ventures Ltd. (ii) Flat at Pune – This property was wrongly taken under the head Fixed Asset schedule of Assessee’s Balance-Sheet, it actually belongs to the Mother

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

property took place during the AY 2014-15., however while determining sale consideration, you have adopted the value of sale agreement (l.e. Rs.97,65,0001-.) which was entered into during the AY2012~}3. However, as per sale deed and also as per the stamp duty authorities rate consideration is Rs. 1,30,20,000/-. The AO ought to have taken

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

house. In view of the requirement of Section 54F of the Act, the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified. We are fortified in the above view by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Balmj v. CIT to the effect that for the purpose of attracting the provision, it was not necessary that

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)

37 Mohanlal Chugh & others evidences furnished by the assessee. We also find that the Assessing Officer has also not brought any corroborative evidence or material on record to establish that the construction of the house got completed at any time earlier than that claimed by the assessee. We further find that the assessee has also challenged the DVO’s report

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)

37 Mohanlal Chugh & others evidences furnished by the assessee. We also find that the Assessing Officer has also not brought any corroborative evidence or material on record to establish that the construction of the house got completed at any time earlier than that claimed by the assessee. We further find that the assessee has also challenged the DVO’s report