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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, 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

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

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

54 of Rs. 13985500 being investment in new house while completing the assessment under section 143(3) on the ground that new house purchased by the assessee is not registered in his name ignoring all the explanations and documents submitted before A.O.as well as before Ld. CIT(A) Ground. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the Indexed

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

54 of the Act. It was held that Section 139 includes Sub Section (4) as well. The said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax has been affirmed in appeal as well. It may be noticed that the assessee sold her residential house on 13.1.2006 for a sum of Rs. 45 lacs and purchased another property

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

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 54

BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

property from his own mother, consideration given has been used to make fixed deposit in the Bharat Shah name of his mother and his wife and subsequently on death of the mother assessee’s wife becomes the owner of the fixed deposit and in this way the consideration paid by the assessee for purchase of residential house from his mother

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

54. (iii) Lastly, Ld. AR carried us to assessment-order where the AO has himself recorded thus: “During the period under consideration assessee has sold share in two ancestral immovable properties after court order. One property was sold in 2014 for value of Rs. 40,30,000/-; the stamp duty authorities also adopted the same value. 2nd property was sold

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

house property’ and not as ‘business income’ and for that reason made the impugned Page 9 of 22 ITA No. 471/Ind/2023 - AY 2016-17 SRK Dev Build Pvt. Ltd disallowances of deductions, the AO was very much wrong in stepping further and making a worse conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars qua those disallowances and thereby invoking section

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

property as well as assessee’s claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act. A perusal of the show-cause notice issued under section 263 of the Act as well as the order passed under the said provision clearly reveal that the revisionary authority has not expressed any doubt regarding the quantum of capital gain arising at the hands

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

property for Rs.1,26,02,377/-\n(Rs.99,48,000+Rs.26,54,377) including construction cost incurred by Assessee\non Duplex House. However, CIT Appeals on the issue of computing capital gain\nsustained AO order for invoking 50C provision even in the case of 54F exemption\ninvolved.\nMy honors the only issue before the Ld Bench is whether Assessee qualifies

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

54 taxmann.com 216 (All); CIT-1 v. Apex Therm Packaging (P.) Ltd. as reported in [2014] 42 taxmann.com 473 (Guj); CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava as reported in [2012] 21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj.) Ashok Pal Daga v. CIT as reported in [1996] 220 ITR 452 (MP); CIT v. Metachem Industries as reported

SMT. ABHILASHA TATEE ,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(3), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

Housing Co-operative Society, Bhopal. During assessment-proceeding, the Ld. AO observed that the original property was sold on 20.05.2014 but out of the total investment of Rs. 79,64,064/-, the investment made within the permissible time-limit of section 54

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

54 of this Act or as per section 53A known as part performance. However Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, makes it clear that w.e.f. 24.09.2001, if an agreement for transfer of an immovable property for consideration is not registered under the Registration Act, it shall have no effect for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer

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

house. Total Investment u/s 54 F 89,44,991 89,44,991 Net Income from Long Term Capital Gain 1,93,656 3. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for following terms: S.No Reason for selection of case in scrutiny 1 Large deduction claimed u/s 54B,54C,54D, 54G, 54GA 2 Sale consideration of the Property

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

54 of Rs. 7,64,00,000/-. It is noted that you have exchanged an immovable property owned by you admeasuring 675 Sq. meter with construction of 1500 Sq Feet. The value of the property is Rs. 7,64,00,000/-. You have exchanged the same with the immovable property of Shri Hassanand Khemlani. The value of the property exchanged

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

54 of Rs. 7,64,00,000/-. It is noted that you have exchanged an immovable property owned by you admeasuring 675 Sq. meter with construction of 1500 Sq Feet. The value of the property is Rs. 7,64,00,000/-. You have exchanged the same with the immovable property of Shri Hassanand Khemlani. The value of the property exchanged

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 54 /54F of the Act, what has to be seen is only the investment for the purpose of purchase or construction or both for a residential house and absolute lega1 ownership by the assessee claiming such deduction is not required. For such proposition, I find that the appellant has rightly placed reliance on the decision