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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

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 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

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’. 6. The Assessing Officer, however, asked the assessee to explain why property known as West Tower be not fixed on its annual letting value as per which section

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’. 6. The Assessing Officer, however, asked the assessee to explain why property known as West Tower be not fixed on its annual letting value as per which section

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’. 6. The Assessing Officer, however, asked the assessee to explain why property known as West Tower be not fixed on its annual letting value as per which section

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’. 6. The Assessing Officer, however, asked the assessee to explain why property known as West Tower be not fixed on its annual letting value as per which section

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’. 6. The Assessing Officer, however, asked the assessee to explain why property known as West Tower be not fixed on its annual letting value as per which section

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

6. So far as the present case is concerned, we think, it clearly falls both within the intendment and language of section 54 if two important considerations are kept in mind. The first is that when the section talks of house property

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

property. The CIT(A) has considered this issue in para 6 & 6.1 as under: “6. Ground No.1: In this ground, the appellant has assailed AO's decision of denying deduction u/s 54 of Rs. 1,39,85,500/- on the ground that new residential house is not registered in the name of the assessee. In the submission filed

M/S NANDA NAGAR SAHKARI SAKH SANTHA,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Nanda Nagar Ito-3(3) Sahkari Sakh Sanstha Range-3 बनाम/ C/O M. Mehta & Co., Indore Vs. 11/5, South Tukoganj, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaaan1784B

6(1) of the Regulation Act. Further, in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors. (supra) the Honble Supreme Court has observed that whenever a question arises as to whether any particular category of income of a co-operative society is exempt from tax, what has to be considered is, as to whether the income falls

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

6. That it is pertinent to submit before this Hon'ble bench that the similar issue was raised by Ld.AO while doing assessment for AY 2005- 06 i.e treating rental income as income from business instead of income from house property and disallowed the standard deduction of 30% u/s 26 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 24 of 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

6. That it is pertinent to submit before this Hon'ble bench that the similar issue was raised by Ld.AO while doing assessment for AY 2005- 06 i.e treating rental income as income from business instead of income from house property and disallowed the standard deduction of 30% u/s 26 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 24 of 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

6. That it is pertinent to submit before this Hon'ble bench that the similar issue was raised by Ld.AO while doing assessment for AY 2005- 06 i.e treating rental income as income from business instead of income from house property and disallowed the standard deduction of 30% u/s 26 Pramod Kumar Sethi I.T.A. No. 382 & 383/Ind/14 24 of Income

BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

6 Bharat Shah house in India (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole

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

house property’ and not as ‘business income’ and for that reason made the impugned Page 9 of 22 ITA No. 471/Ind/2023 - AY 2016-17 SRK Dev Build Pvt. Ltd disallowances of deductions, the AO was very much wrong in stepping further and making a worse conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars qua those disallowances and thereby invoking section

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

6. The Ld. A.R. has further relied in the case of ACIT v. Subhash Sevaram Bhavnani [2012] 23 taxmann.com 94 (Ahmedabad –Trib) where the assessee has started construction Shri Sushil Kumar Bafna, Ujjain v. ITO-1(1) /I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014/A.Y.:10-11 Page 10 of 24 of residential house before the date of transfer of capital asset, however, same

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

6 - 5] the provisions of section 154. * While computing the deduction claimed u/s 54F Ld. Pr. CIT took the FMV of cost of construction of building (only) i.e. Rs. 63,79,000 for the purpose of calculation of proportionate deduction as per provisions of section 54F(1). Ld. Pr. CIT computed the deduction

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary and in the absence