M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

housing boards, regulatory authorities and corporations may be entitled to, if mandated to collect or Page 3 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 4 of 22 receive. The definition of charitable activity provided u/s 2(15) ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

housing boards, regulatory authorities and corporations may be entitled to, if mandated to collect or Page 3 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 4 of 22 receive. The definition of charitable activity provided u/s 2(15) ipso facto does not spell out whether certain kinds of income can be excluded however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4A) has to be drawn considering the explanation on record which has been given by the appellant owning up all the unrecorded transactions. Considering all the facts in totality it is therefore logical to uphold the explanation given by the appellant that the unrecorded transactions as appearing in the pen drive belong to him as the affairs were being managed

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4A) has to be drawn considering the explanation on record which has been given by the appellant owning up all the unrecorded transactions. Considering all the facts in totality it is therefore logical to uphold the explanation given by the appellant that the unrecorded transactions as appearing in the pen drive belong to him as the affairs were being managed

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4A) has to be drawn considering the explanation on record which has been given by the appellant owning up all the unrecorded transactions. Considering all the facts in totality it is therefore logical to uphold the explanation given by the appellant that the unrecorded transactions as appearing in the pen drive belong to him as the affairs were being managed

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

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

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), 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

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 132(4A of the Act, the appellant ought to have explained source of cash investment in ‘truba’. Further, the appellant could also have demonstrated that the impugned cash was not paid by him, however, none of which have been done. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the impugned cash was paid by the appellant for which no explanation

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 132(4A of the Act, the appellant ought to have explained source of cash investment in ‘truba’. Further, the appellant could also have demonstrated that the impugned cash was not paid by him, however, none of which have been done. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the impugned cash was paid by the appellant for which no explanation

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

house property and interest. The assessee is a partner in M/s Truba Services, M/s Hotel Sanchi Regency and M/s Sharad Sharma. There was a search and seizure operation under section IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma 132(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 carried out at residential premises of assessee H-3B, Nishant colony, 74 Bunglows

BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement

SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH DHARIWAL,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SAHU,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARY,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No.103, Mastura, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA. No 542/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 PAN : BHGPK0249B Shri Birendra Kumar Sharma, V/s DCIT 1(1), 2, Tiwari Mohalla Bijakpur, Bhopal Dabra, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT Assessee by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv with Shri Gagan Tiwary, Advocate Date of Hearing 14.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement