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

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

40,150/- on this amount of long-term capital gain u/s 54F of the Act. 15. The alternative ground no. 2 of the assessee is that section 54F provides a period of three years for construction of a house and in case if the assessee is not in a position to purchase a house, in the first year

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

40,00,000/- 3,08,740/- 4 East West Finvest India 27,00,000/- 77,293/- Ltd 1,02,00,000/- 6,14,855/- Addition of Rs.5,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2006-07 for procuring loans. S.No. Name of the Company Unsecured loans Interest paid taken 1 Trimurti Finvest P.Ltd 35,00,000/- 1,80,875/- 2 Purvi

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

40,00,000/- 3,08,740/- 4 East West Finvest India 27,00,000/- 77,293/- Ltd 1,02,00,000/- 6,14,855/- Addition of Rs.5,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2006-07 for procuring loans. S.No. Name of the Company Unsecured loans Interest paid taken 1 Trimurti Finvest P.Ltd 35,00,000/- 1,80,875/- 2 Purvi

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

40,00,000/- 3,08,740/- 4 East West Finvest India 27,00,000/- 77,293/- Ltd 1,02,00,000/- 6,14,855/- Addition of Rs.5,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2006-07 for procuring loans. S.No. Name of the Company Unsecured loans Interest paid taken 1 Trimurti Finvest P.Ltd 35,00,000/- 1,80,875/- 2 Purvi

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

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

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 and issued show-cause notice dated 26.12.2018 u/s 274 r.w.s

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

40,080 5 Deduction claimed u/s 54F 73,04,318 Ld. AO in assessment order [Correct] has considered the entire cost of (1,22,28,892*75,58,768/1, new residential house i.e. Rs. 26,54,892) 75,58,768 as deduction u/s 54F. Computation of deduction u/s 54F is in dispute * 6 Deduction claimed

SHRI ISHWAR PATEL,DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR

In the result, ground no. 4 in both the years are also

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

40,000/- as income from other sources is bad in law and that too in individual status of the assessee. Ground no. 5 :- The entire assessment is bad in law and it is liable to be quashed.” 4. From a perusal of the above grounds, following common issues need our adjudication :- (i) Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in approving

SHRI ISHWAR PATEL,DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR

In the result, ground no. 4 in both the years are also

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

40,000/- as income from other sources is bad in law and that too in individual status of the assessee. Ground no. 5 :- The entire assessment is bad in law and it is liable to be quashed.” 4. From a perusal of the above grounds, following common issues need our adjudication :- (i) Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in approving

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

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary and in the absence

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

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary and in the absence

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

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary and in the absence

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

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary and in the absence

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

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, hence LTCG if worked

SHRI SURESH AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE ITO -5(3), INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Property Act 1882, r.w. section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Considering these circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the AO should have taken sale consideration at Rs. 8,70,411/- on sale of this land and not Rs. 14 Lakh which otherwise does not fall under the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, we direct