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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

56,589/- Income from house property 4,69,34,191/- 5.2 Since, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated in the matter.” 27. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the main contention of the assessee was as under: “5.01 Without prejudice

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

56,589/- Income from house property 4,69,34,191/- 5.2 Since, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated in the matter.” 27. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the main contention of the assessee was as under: “5.01 Without prejudice

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

56,589/- Income from house property 4,69,34,191/- 5.2 Since, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated in the matter.” 27. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the main contention of the assessee was as under: “5.01 Without prejudice

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’. It is for this reason that the aforesaid show- cause notice was issued. The assessee in reply to the said notice raised various objections to the aforesaid proposed move of the Assessing Officer. Some of these objections included: (a)The assessee was only a licensee in respect of the aforesaid premises and the actual owner was NDMC. Thus

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’. It is for this reason that the aforesaid show- cause notice was issued. The assessee in reply to the said notice raised various objections to the aforesaid proposed move of the Assessing Officer. Some of these objections included: (a)The assessee was only a licensee in respect of the aforesaid premises and the actual owner was NDMC. Thus

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’. It is for this reason that the aforesaid show- cause notice was issued. The assessee in reply to the said notice raised various objections to the aforesaid proposed move of the Assessing Officer. Some of these objections included: (a)The assessee was only a licensee in respect of the aforesaid premises and the actual owner was NDMC. Thus

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’. It is for this reason that the aforesaid show- cause notice was issued. The assessee in reply to the said notice raised various objections to the aforesaid proposed move of the Assessing Officer. Some of these objections included: (a)The assessee was only a licensee in respect of the aforesaid premises and the actual owner was NDMC. Thus

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’. It is for this reason that the aforesaid show- cause notice was issued. The assessee in reply to the said notice raised various objections to the aforesaid proposed move of the Assessing Officer. Some of these objections included: (a)The assessee was only a licensee in respect of the aforesaid premises and the actual owner was NDMC. Thus

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

56,530/- Add: 1. Addition U/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 Rs.1,05,00,000/- Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 2. Interest on the loans Rs. 6,14,855/- 3. Expenditure incurred for procuring loans Rs. 5,25,000/- 4. Addition on account of Rental income Treated as business income Rs. 7,92,350/- Total assessed income

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

56,530/- Add: 1. Addition U/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 Rs.1,05,00,000/- Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 2. Interest on the loans Rs. 6,14,855/- 3. Expenditure incurred for procuring loans Rs. 5,25,000/- 4. Addition on account of Rental income Treated as business income Rs. 7,92,350/- Total assessed income

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

56,530/- Add: 1. Addition U/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 Rs.1,05,00,000/- Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 2. Interest on the loans Rs. 6,14,855/- 3. Expenditure incurred for procuring loans Rs. 5,25,000/- 4. Addition on account of Rental income Treated as business income Rs. 7,92,350/- Total assessed income

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

56 SOT 473(Hyd) held where amount of capital gains claimed as exempted under section 54F is not utilized in construction of residential house within period of 3 years, it will be charged to capital gains in year in which period of 3 years expires, however, exemption already granted shall not be denied. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

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

56,492/- and 2,98,69,476/-; the AO therefore imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. vide order dated 28.06.2019. The AO’s order is re-produced below for an immediate reference: “3. During assessment proceeding the AO has disallowed the depreciation of Rs. 2,10,80,516/- u/s 32(1) of the Income

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property along with land appurtenant thereto, hence there is no question in respect deduction u/s 54/54F. With due humble request it is submitted to your honour that we have exchanged property at Rs. 7,64,60,000/- adopted by the stamp authority, which is full value consideration for both the parties. Because properties are not exchanged below the value

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property along with land appurtenant thereto, hence there is no question in respect deduction u/s 54/54F. With due humble request it is submitted to your honour that we have exchanged property at Rs. 7,64,60,000/- adopted by the stamp authority, which is full value consideration for both the parties. Because properties are not exchanged below the value

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

56 TTJ 417(Mad.) iv. Smt. Ranjeet Sandhu vs. DCIT 133 TTJ 64 ITAT,(Tribunal).” In support of contention that exemption u/s 54 would be available even if the construction within statutory period, where the entire sale consideration is interested in purchase of land/construction of house. 6. On the contrary Ld. DR opposed the submission and submitted that case

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

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

56,86,839) 18,60,060 Murtee Tradex Advances Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 Private Limited 6 The IESM Loans and (1,65,684) 32,00,000 28,15,481 2,18,835 32,00,000 Academy Advances 7 Jain Infratech Loans and [Prop. Deepak Advances

SHRI SUKHRAM MUKATI,INDORE vs. THE ITO WD-3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

56,71,000. We also observe that the only source of income of the assessee is from agricultural income and there is apparently no other source of income; from which the assessee can earn so much amount in cash and that too in Shri Sukhram Mukati & Shri Vishnu Mukati v. ITO 3(3) Indore/ I.T.A. No. 409&410/Ind/2014/A.Y.08-09 Page