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 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

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

property as exceeds such consideration shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head, "Income from other sources". Further, the NAV method as per Rule 11UA has been prescribed as the method for computing FMV of the shares for the purposes of section 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act. 1.36. Accordingly, if for the sake of argument, shares were

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

section 54F could not be allowed. It cannot be the intention of the legislature to accept whatever assessee says without proper evidence in support of that claim. Accordingly, the action of the AO was confirmed. 5. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has sold the Shri Sushil Kumar Bafna

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

41,57,868/- as on 31.03.2013. That appellant has demolished the Old house after he got permission for construction in April 2013. That later on after 01.04.2014 the appellant has started construction of new house and thereby he has incurred an amount of Rs. 43,31,991/- till 30.11.2014 towards construction of new house. 5.6] The appellant has duly filed

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

section 54(2) of the Act……” [emphasis supplied] In the instant case, the investment made by assessee of Rs. 11,79,768 towards installation of household items like Air Conditioner, Sofa sets, etc forms an integral part of the new residential house so as to put it in a habitable condition. This cost incurred is an integral part of cost

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

property" 5 Shivcharan Singh (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of [one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased], or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, then], instead of the capital gain being

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

41. In the present case, we find that the assessee had, in part performance of the agreement to sell the land in question, was given possession thereof and had also carried out the construction work for development of the housing project. Combined reading of Section 2(47)(v) and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property

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

property and upon surrender thereof, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 3,25,00,000/-which was rightly offered as long-term capital gain in terms of section 45(1), 48, 55(2) and 2(29B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Ld. AO was wrong in rejecting the claim of long-term capital gain and assessing

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)

property. Accordingly, we hereby confirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,49,482/- made in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, this ground of Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed. SHRI NITESH 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)

property. Accordingly, we hereby confirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,49,482/- made in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, this ground of Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed. SHRI NITESH 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)

property. Accordingly, we hereby confirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,49,482/- made in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, this ground of Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 20. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for the A.Y. 2011-12 is dismissed. SHRI NITESH CHUGH

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

41,561/- as claimed u / s 8OP(2) (d) of the Act was required to be disallowed and added back to the total Page 3 of 17 ITANo.188/Ind/2023 Sankalp Sakh Sahkari income of the assessee which was not done at the time of assessment.” 3. Thus, the Pr. CIT was of the view that interest income is required

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

41 years resident of Chhoti Bhamori, Indore, state on oath as under :- 1. That I am a Chairman Director of the Co-operative Society, M/s. Indore Pragatisheel Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, (Hereinafter called Society). 2. M/s. Indore Pragatisheel Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit is assessed to income tax under the PAN AAAAI3124L. The assessment of the Society was framed against which the appeal

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

property shall be purchased in the name of the assessee; it merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed "a residential house". 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

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

41,974+8,96,460) period prior to date of filing of return of income i.e. 22.09.2011, hence, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act of that amount. For the balance of Rs. 5, 88,484/- the assessee has made investment of Rs. 25,50,000/- within two years from the sale of agriculture land

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

41,44,890/- .The case was selected for scrutiny for verification of issue(s) mentioned above.” 5.1. Therefore, on the issue of verification of genuineness of the expenses the case was selected for scrutiny. In para 2 of the assessment order the AO has stated that notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued and in-compliance thereto, the assessee