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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

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

Section 147 of the Act upon filing her return of income showing total income of Rs. 19,740/-: Computation of Capital Gains Sale Consideration received Rs. 29,00,000 Market Value of the property sold Rs. 42,52,000 PARTICULARA SALES MARKET VALUE CONSIDERATION 50% share in house

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 in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 42 of 66 23. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 24. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material

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 in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 42 of 66 23. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 24. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material

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 in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 42 of 66 23. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 24. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material

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 in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 42 of 66 23. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 24. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material

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 in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 42 of 66 23. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 24. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material

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

Section 143(3) for making addition, where no incriminating material relating to assessment years in question were found and seized from the premises of the assessee. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 16. Examining the fact of instant appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the light of the above judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench

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

Section 143(3) for making addition, where no incriminating material relating to assessment years in question were found and seized from the premises of the assessee. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 16. Examining the fact of instant appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the light of the above judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench

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

Section 143(3) for making addition, where no incriminating material relating to assessment years in question were found and seized from the premises of the assessee. Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 16. Examining the fact of instant appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the light of the above judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench

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

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

section 14 of the Act, any income chargeable to tax has to be classified under the five heads viz. income from salaries, income from house property, income from profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Further, u/s. 56(1) of the Act, any income shall be chargeable to income from other sources only

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

42,400 0 Investment in House Property u/s 54 Rs. 36,50,051/- Amount deposited in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme u/s 54 Rs. 62,00,000/- Page 10 of 12 Dilip Chandrasenrao Mahadik Assessment year 2015-16 On comparison of these three workings given by assessee, we find substantial mis-matches and variations. To illustrate, in (ii) above, the assessee

PRAGYA SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Pragya Saxena Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Awfps 9685 L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

house out of the total sale consideration of his immovable property of Rs. 42,00,000/-. However, the stamp duty value of the sold property at the time of transfer was Rs. 58,66,100/- and in terms of the provisions of section

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

42 as under: 18/07/2017 To The Income Tax Officer Ward 2 Khandwa Ref.:- Sewa Sahakari Samittee Maryadit Beed PAN AAUFS0703N Sub.: Compliance to notice No ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2017- 18/1004781781(1) 150 dated 4/7/2017, Asst Year 2016-17 Madam In compliance to your above notice assessee society begs to submit that 1) That the unsecured loan as shown in the return

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete