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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23 of the Act by the Ld. AO is bad in law and thus liable to be quashed in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as above is according to us is just and proper so as to warrant interference. With the above observations, we conclude that

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 23 of the Act by the Ld. AO is bad in law and thus liable to be quashed in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) as above is according to us is just and proper so as to warrant interference. With the above observations, we conclude that

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

57,868/- as on 31.03.2013. That appellant has demolished the Old house after he got permission for construction in April 2013. That later on after 01.04.2014 the appellant has started construction of new house and thereby he has incurred an amount of Rs. 43,31,991/- till 30.11.2014 towards construction of new house. 5.6] The appellant has duly filed

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

house. In view of the requirement of Section 54F of the Act, the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified. We are fortified in the above view by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Balmj v. CIT to the effect that for the purpose of attracting the provision, it was not necessary that

NEERA KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 54F does not grant exemption if the assessee is owner of more than 1 residential house on the date of transfer. But in the present case, the assessee was owner of only 1 residential house and hence the exemption u/s 54F was rightly claimed by assessee and allowed by AO. At that stage, the Bench posed a question

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

57 of the Paper Book filed before us, is reproduced hereinbelow: “In connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 you are required to: a) Furnish or cause to be furnished on or before 18/06/2018 at 01:06 PM the accounts and documents specified overleaf. b) Furnish and verified in the prescribed manner under Rule

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

57 of the Paper Book filed before us, is reproduced hereinbelow: “In connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 you are required to: a) Furnish or cause to be furnished on or before 18/06/2018 at 01:06 PM the accounts and documents specified overleaf. b) Furnish and verified in the prescribed manner under Rule

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

57 of the Act. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the authorities below Page 5 of 16 Indore Pragtishil Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Mydt, Indore. Vs. I.T.Department, NFAC, Delhi -ITA No.317/Ind/2023 Assessment year 2018-19 9. We have considered the facts, rival submissions and perused the record placed before

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

SHRI VINAYAK KALANI,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Vinayak Kalani, Dy. Cit, 6Th Floor, 1(1), Treasure Island, Indore. बनाम/ 11, Tukoganju Main Road, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Atgpk8379P Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024

house-property of Rs. 30,000/-, loss from other sources of Rs. 37,41,259/- and deductions under Chapter VI-A of Rs. 1,61,568/-. The assessee declared loss of Rs. 37,41,259/- from other sources as under: “Income from Other sources (Chapter IV F): Interest from Saving Bank A/c 1,20,315 Interest Item

KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

section 54F, we find that there can be two ways of claiming exemption u/s 54F, viz. (i) the assessee makes a direct investment in new residential house property, and (ii) the assessee deposits amount in CGDS A/c and thereafter invests in new residential house property by utilizing the amount so deposited. In present case, the assessee has not adopted

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

57,600 89,63,885 Deduction u/s 54 89,63,885 0 Investment in House property u/s 54 Rs. 84,21,000/- (65,00,000/- plus 19,21,000) 7,00,000/- (Round off) cost of Repair” [Emphasis added] 5. However, the PCIT was not satisfied with the reply of assessee for the reasons mentioned by him in revision-order

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

house property interest on\nsecurities, capital gains, or other sources, the word \"income\" should be\nunderstood in its commercial sense,i.e., book income, after adding back any\nappropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or\notherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital\nexpenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

57,075/- in AY 2018-19 {50% of total difference} on account of unexplained investment in the construction of house. Remaining amount has been added in the hands of his wife Smt. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia. The valuation officer has determined cost of construction at Rs. 2,46,69,000/- whereas, the appellant has shown total cost of construction

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

57,075/- in AY 2018-19 {50% of total difference} on account of unexplained investment in the construction of house. Remaining amount has been added in the hands of his wife Smt. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia. The valuation officer has determined cost of construction at Rs. 2,46,69,000/- whereas, the appellant has shown total cost of construction

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

57,075/- in AY 2018-19 {50% of total difference} on account of unexplained investment in the construction of house. Remaining amount has been added in the hands of his wife Smt. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia. The valuation officer has determined cost of construction at Rs. 2,46,69,000/- whereas, the appellant has shown total cost of construction