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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

vii) The assessee was not under any contractual obligation to ensure that the customers who visited the mall keep on buying and/or availing various entertainment and other facilities available in the mall so that the occupation in the mall remains commercially viable for those from whom it derives income from month to month.” 13. While categorizing the income derived from

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

vii) The assessee was not under any contractual obligation to ensure that the customers who visited the mall keep on buying and/or availing various entertainment and other facilities available in the mall so that the occupation in the mall remains commercially viable for those from whom it derives income from month to month.” 13. While categorizing the income derived from

SHRI KHALID AMAN,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

56(2)(vii)(b) arising from the transactions of purchase of three properties by the assessee had escaped assessment. Ld. AR submitted that the Issue No. 2 raised by Ld. PCIT was neither a reason of re- opening nor a matter which was considered by Ld. AO during the course of re-assessment proceeding in terms of the main body

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

vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded by the AO on the basis of Balance Sheet of the assessee

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

vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded by the AO on the basis of Balance Sheet of the assessee

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

vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded by the AO on the basis of Balance Sheet of the assessee

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

vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded by the AO on the basis of Balance Sheet of the assessee

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

vii) CIT vs. Sheri Atul Kumar Swami, 362 ITR 693 (Del) (viii) Tara Chand Jain, I.T.A.No. 2282/Kol/2014 ( I.T.A.T. Kol.) (ix) Gas & Power Investment Co., (Appeal No. I.T.A.No. 1118/Mum/2014 dated 5.2.2016 ( I.T.A.T. Mum.) 9. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the above reasons were recorded by the AO on the basis of Balance Sheet of the assessee

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

property owned by the Shri Hassanand Khemlani admeasuring 1381.68 Sq. meter was also fixed at Rs. 7.64,60,000/- 1.0. 55,324/- per Sq. mater which is not fair and correct. You have violated provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The AO did not examine these facts by conducting any enquiry

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

property owned by the Shri Hassanand Khemlani admeasuring 1381.68 Sq. meter was also fixed at Rs. 7.64,60,000/- 1.0. 55,324/- per Sq. mater which is not fair and correct. You have violated provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The AO did not examine these facts by conducting any enquiry

SANJAY KUMAR DARYANI,INDORE vs. PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjay Kumar Daryani Pr. Cit-1 505, Emerald Court C-Block Indore बनाम/ Sanjana Park Vs. Near Agrawal Public School Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aiopd3135D

56(2)(vii)(b) of I.T. Act but this was not found done in scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. b. It is further observed that your contention that you paid registration expenses out of your savings and capital. Assessee has shown business income u/s 44AD of I.T. Act and has not maintained books of account on perusal of return

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

section 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner

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 14 of the Act, any income chargeable to tax has to be classified under the five heads viz. income from salaries, income from house property, income from profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Further, u/s. 56(1) of the Act, any income shall be chargeable to income from other sources only

M/S ASHOKA HI-TECH BUILDERS P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

property" shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of section 269UA. Explanation 2. -- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

vii) Trust or institutions referred to in section 11. (2) Includes any income by way of any anonymous donation. (3) Income tax payable shall be the aggregate of the amount of income tax calculation on the income by way of any anonymous donation @ 30 %. (4) Amount of income tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

vii) Trust or institutions referred to in section 11. (2) Includes any income by way of any anonymous donation. (3) Income tax payable shall be the aggregate of the amount of income tax calculation on the income by way of any anonymous donation @ 30 %. (4) Amount of income tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

vii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v/s International Travel House Ltd (2012) ITR 554 (Delhi) 26 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari (viii) Income Tax Officer V/s D.G Housing Projects Ltd (2002) 343 ITR 329 Delhi (ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

vii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v/s International Travel House Ltd (2012) ITR 554 (Delhi) 26 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari (viii) Income Tax Officer V/s D.G Housing Projects Ltd (2002) 343 ITR 329 Delhi (ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed