PRAGYA SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Pragya Saxena Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Awfps 9685 L Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

section 54F of Rs. 41,00,000/- on account of purchase of new residential house out of the total sale consideration of his immovable property of Rs. 42,00,000/-. However, the stamp duty value of the sold property at the time of transfer was Rs. 58

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. ITO, 4(3), BHOPAL, OFFICE OF ITO BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Property Tax receipts for A.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and\n2018-19 (PB 120-123)\nc. An application in this regard is pressed before your honours. It is\ntherefore prayed that the additional evidences which are clinching\nevidences; and supporting the stand of the assessee that a\nresidential house was let out may kindly be taken on record

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

58 of the Paper Book wherein the two notices dated 04.06.2018 and 16.10.2018 issued as also different documents as mentioned above are in existence. It was further contended that the above details were duly considered and examined by the Ld. AO and after being satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, the assessment was completed under Section

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

58 of the Paper Book wherein the two notices dated 04.06.2018 and 16.10.2018 issued as also different documents as mentioned above are in existence. It was further contended that the above details were duly considered and examined by the Ld. AO and after being satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, the assessment was completed under Section

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)

house. The only point of dispute raised by the Assessing Officer is that the on-money of Rs.2,08,00,000/- admitted during the course of search u/s. 132(1) by the assessee to have received from sale of agricultural land is to be declared in the return of income under the head ‘income from other sources’ and no Mohanlal

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)

house. The only point of dispute raised by the Assessing Officer is that the on-money of Rs.2,08,00,000/- admitted during the course of search u/s. 132(1) by the assessee to have received from sale of agricultural land is to be declared in the return of income under the head ‘income from other sources’ and no Mohanlal

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)

house. The only point of dispute raised by the Assessing Officer is that the on-money of Rs.2,08,00,000/- admitted during the course of search u/s. 132(1) by the assessee to have received from sale of agricultural land is to be declared in the return of income under the head ‘income from other sources’ and no Mohanlal

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

section\n80-IB(10) of the Act. It is evidently clear that the appellant had acted merely as a\ncontractor after selling the plots and not as a developer. Therefore, respectfully\nfollowing the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal orders for A.Y. 2008-09, A.Y.\n2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12, the appellant is not eligible

M/S. RAJDHANI LAND & HOUSING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S Rajdhani Land & Pr. Cit-1, Housing Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahfr4618J Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 20.09.2019. Rajdhani Land & Housing

section 80IB(10) of the Act raised in the instant case has come up before this Tribunal and the same are decided vide order dated 25.04.2012 directing the ld. AO to decide the issue afresh in light of various documents furnished. The relevant extract of the order of Tribunal is mentioned below: 15 Rajdhani Land & Housing Rival contentions have been

M/S SWADESH DEVLOPERS AND BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

58,65,456/- 2 2009-10 Rs.2,53,19,824/- 3 2010-11 Rs.3,34,67,691/- 4 2011-12 Rs.1,15,75,564/- 5 2012-13 Rs.3,95,46,668/- 6 2013-14 Rs.2,90,94,057/- 7 2014-15 Rs.8,00,000/- 18. The Ld. AO denied the claim observing that the assessee worked in the capacity

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

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

property\nSale consideration\n202,00,000\n1,37,00,000\nLess:\nIndex Cost of Land Transferred\n11,74,905\nCapital Gain\n1,90,25,095\nCost of new house purchased\n1,26,02,377\nCapital gain exempt as per section 54F\n1,75,00,834\n(19025095*12602377/13700000)\nTaxable gain\n15,24,261\nIn support of our claim, we wish

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

58,16,000/- in A.Y. 2016-17 are hereby deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 9. Before us, Ld. DR for revenue/appellant submitted that the limited issue before bench is whether section 40A(3) was attracted or not? He submitted that the assessee has not given any details or evidence to AO to show daily payments

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

58,16,000/- in A.Y. 2016-17 are hereby deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 9. Before us, Ld. DR for revenue/appellant submitted that the limited issue before bench is whether section 40A(3) was attracted or not? He submitted that the assessee has not given any details or evidence to AO to show daily payments

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

58,16,000/- in A.Y. 2016-17 are hereby deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 9. Before us, Ld. DR for revenue/appellant submitted that the limited issue before bench is whether section 40A(3) was attracted or not? He submitted that the assessee has not given any details or evidence to AO to show daily payments

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,INDORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

58 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The assessee authority also undertakes to carry out the development work of general in nature which is utilized by the public at large. Such expenses have been consistently incurred by the assessee in the past also and such claim have been allowed by the revenue authorities after conducting scrutiny

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

58 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The assessee authority also undertakes to carry out the development work of general in nature which is utilized by the public at large. Such expenses have been consistently incurred by the assessee in the past also and such claim have been allowed by the revenue authorities after conducting scrutiny

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

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

58 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The assessee authority also undertakes to carry out the development work of general in nature which is utilized by the public at large. Such expenses have been consistently incurred by the assessee in the past also and such claim have been allowed by the revenue authorities after conducting scrutiny