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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

58,284 i) Assessee is not eligible for depreciation on that portion of building, income wherefrom is assessable under the head 'Income from property'. ii) The depreciation cannot be allowed on the entire constructed building but it has to be restricted to the occupancy level. Accordingly, based upon occupancy level of 35%, depreciation has been restricted. iii) The AO presumed

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

58,284 i) Assessee is not eligible for depreciation on that portion of building, income wherefrom is assessable under the head 'Income from property'. ii) The depreciation cannot be allowed on the entire constructed building but it has to be restricted to the occupancy level. Accordingly, based upon occupancy level of 35%, depreciation has been restricted. iii) The AO presumed

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". 10. The assessee preferred appeal against this order before the CIT(A). In this appeal, the assessee took an additional ground predicated on the provisions of section 27(iii) read with section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

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". 10. The assessee preferred appeal against this order before the CIT(A). In this appeal, the assessee took an additional ground predicated on the provisions of section 27(iii) read with section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

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". 10. The assessee preferred appeal against this order before the CIT(A). In this appeal, the assessee took an additional ground predicated on the provisions of section 27(iii) read with section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

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". 10. The assessee preferred appeal against this order before the CIT(A). In this appeal, the assessee took an additional ground predicated on the provisions of section 27(iii) read with section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

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". 10. The assessee preferred appeal against this order before the CIT(A). In this appeal, the assessee took an additional ground predicated on the provisions of section 27(iii) read with section 269UA(f)( ii) of the Act and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

property. For the claim of Section. 54F the assessee claimed to have constructed a new residential house. He has claimed to have invested total of Rs.75,58

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

58, 72,000 under section 68 read with section 69A without verifying the facts of the case. The addition so made being illegal and wrong, the same required to be deleted. 3. That the learned CIT (A) erred in making addition of Rs. 8, 80,000 under section 69 without pinpointing any unexplained deposit. The addition so made being illegal

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 80-IB(10) of the Act. It is evidently clear that the appellant had acted merely as a contractor after selling the plots and not as a developer. Therefore, respectfully following the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the appeal orders for A.Y. 2008-09, A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12, the appellant is not eligible

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

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 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

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

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