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 is chargeable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we hold that the AO was not justified in charging of notional rental income in the hands of the assessee on building used for running of schedule by Jasleen Educational Service Society. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the all above grounds

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 is chargeable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we hold that the AO was not justified in charging of notional rental income in the hands of the assessee on building used for running of schedule by Jasleen Educational Service Society. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the all above grounds

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 is chargeable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we hold that the AO was not justified in charging of notional rental income in the hands of the assessee on building used for running of schedule by Jasleen Educational Service Society. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the all above grounds

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

5,55,875/- Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 Addition of Rs.6,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2007-08 for procuring loans. 13. From the perusal of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2006-07 as well as details annexed in the paper book we find that the unsecured loans taken from the four companies is in total

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

5,55,875/- Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 Addition of Rs.6,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2007-08 for procuring loans. 13. From the perusal of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2006-07 as well as details annexed in the paper book we find that the unsecured loans taken from the four companies is in total

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

5,55,875/- Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 Addition of Rs.6,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2007-08 for procuring loans. 13. From the perusal of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2006-07 as well as details annexed in the paper book we find that the unsecured loans taken from the four companies is in total

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

43,31,991/- which also includes Rs 218994/- as paid for sanction of MAP The expenses incurred were for construction of new house after demolition of the old house. Hence, the appellant was rightly eligible to claim deduction under Shaligram Borad section 54F of the Act The Ld Pr CIT merely on the basis of amount as reflected

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

43. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502) held that: “Held, that the finding of fact by the Tribunal was that the assessee had produced relevant material and offered explanations in pursuance of the notices issued under section 142(1) as well as section 143(2) of the act and after considering

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

43 CCH 0112. (vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case olf CIT vs. Surya Merchants Limited SLP(C) No.6729 of 2017. For the proposition that each unit is an independent unit and profit and loss of each unit need to be considered on individual basis not consolidated basis for claiming deduction under section 80IA(5). (viii) CBDT Circular No.1/2016

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

43 CCH 0112. (vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case olf CIT vs. Surya Merchants Limited SLP(C) No.6729 of 2017. For the proposition that each unit is an independent unit and profit and loss of each unit need to be considered on individual basis not consolidated basis for claiming deduction under section 80IA(5). (viii) CBDT Circular No.1/2016

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

43 CCH 0112. (vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case olf CIT vs. Surya Merchants Limited SLP(C) No.6729 of 2017. For the proposition that each unit is an independent unit and profit and loss of each unit need to be considered on individual basis not consolidated basis for claiming deduction under section 80IA(5). (viii) CBDT Circular No.1/2016

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

43 CCH 0112. (vii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case olf CIT vs. Surya Merchants Limited SLP(C) No.6729 of 2017. For the proposition that each unit is an independent unit and profit and loss of each unit need to be considered on individual basis not consolidated basis for claiming deduction under section 80IA(5). (viii) CBDT Circular No.1/2016

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

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

43,000/-. Thus, it is apparent that the buyer of the plot has become absolute owner of the plot on 09/06/2008 and the assessee firm has received a Page 4 of 26 M/s. Balaji Sterling Builders ITA No.597/Ind/2016& ITANo.692/Ind/2018 Assessment year 2010-11 consideration of Rs. 13,93,000/-for construction work. From the above facts, it is apparent that

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

house. The ld. AR further submitted that the investment of net sale consideration in new residential property within a period of three years from the date of sale of the property is important rather than keeping the net sale consideration in separate Capital Gain Scheme Account as notified by the Central Government. For this purpose he relied on the following

SHRI KRISHAN BAHADUR SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:1997-98

5. The ld. CIT(A) on the basis of report of AVO, Meerut which was done on the direction of predecessor CIT(A)-1, Bhopal, came to conclusion that the value of the residential house by the Valuation Officer Meerut is calculated at Rs.13,62,000/- and therefore there was no reason to disturb the finding

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 is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

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 is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before