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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

50,000/- per month per tenant.” 26. Finally the rent receivable/accrued in the assessee hand was calculated at Rs. 7,92,90,780/- which has been determined as the assessee’s income from house property for A.Y. 2011-12 as against the rental income of Rs. 7,95,526/- as shown by the assessee. The income from house property

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

50,000/- per month per tenant.” 26. Finally the rent receivable/accrued in the assessee hand was calculated at Rs. 7,92,90,780/- which has been determined as the assessee’s income from house property for A.Y. 2011-12 as against the rental income of Rs. 7,95,526/- as shown by the assessee. The income from house property

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 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 under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

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 under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

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 under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

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 under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

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 under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

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

50,000 in construction of residential house nor has deposited the same in capital gains scheme account as notified by the Central Government before the expiry of due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the AO and CIT (A) were right in disallowing the exemption under section

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

50,000/- 16 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 The same wordings are given in the subsequent assessment years for making the addition of Cash Credit." 14.The Ld, CITCA) has deleted the addition by observing that addition is warranted In the hands of lenders and not in the hands of the assessee, otherwise it will amount to double addition

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

50,000/- 16 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 The same wordings are given in the subsequent assessment years for making the addition of Cash Credit." 14.The Ld, CITCA) has deleted the addition by observing that addition is warranted In the hands of lenders and not in the hands of the assessee, otherwise it will amount to double addition

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

50,000/- 16 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 The same wordings are given in the subsequent assessment years for making the addition of Cash Credit." 14.The Ld, CITCA) has deleted the addition by observing that addition is warranted In the hands of lenders and not in the hands of the assessee, otherwise it will amount to double addition

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

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

50,920/-. Subsequently, the Ld. Pr. CIT after examining the report found that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence, he initiated proceedings u/s 2 Satyanarayan Sharma /ITANo.426/Ind/2018 263 of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 12.03.2018. In response to the notice issued

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

section 69 of the Act at Rs.1,05,500/- and addition for income from other sources at Rs.33,000/- on account of declaring excess figure of agricultural income. The income was assessed at Rs.1,76,900/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

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

section 69 of the Act at Rs.1,05,500/- and addition for income from other sources at Rs.33,000/- on account of declaring excess figure of agricultural income. The income was assessed at Rs.1,76,900/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

SHRI KAILASH BHAGWAN CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(3), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT V~. Natrajan, (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad), though this case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, the said Section is pari materia of Section 54F(l) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT V~. Natrajan, (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad), though this case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, the said Section is pari materia of Section 54F(l) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case