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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property of Rs. 4,69,34,191/- after considering that the provisions of section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and held that the income from leasing out of profession u/s. 28 without appreciating the fact that the present case is running a mall and deriving income letting out of shopping mall as well as business income from common

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

house property of Rs. 4,69,34,191/- after considering that the provisions of section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and held that the income from leasing out of profession u/s. 28 without appreciating the fact that the present case is running a mall and deriving income letting out of shopping mall as well as business income from common

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 is chargeable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we hold that the AO was not justified in charging of notional rental income in the hands of the assessee on building used for running of schedule by Jasleen Educational Service Society. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the all above grounds

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 is chargeable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we hold that the AO was not justified in charging of notional rental income in the hands of the assessee on building used for running of schedule by Jasleen Educational Service Society. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the all above grounds

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 is chargeable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we hold that the AO was not justified in charging of notional rental income in the hands of the assessee on building used for running of schedule by Jasleen Educational Service Society. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the all above grounds

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 is chargeable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we hold that the AO was not justified in charging of notional rental income in the hands of the assessee on building used for running of schedule by Jasleen Educational Service Society. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the all above grounds

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 is chargeable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we hold that the AO was not justified in charging of notional rental income in the hands of the assessee on building used for running of schedule by Jasleen Educational Service Society. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the all above grounds

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

63,229/- 20,62,494/- Finvest Ltd Trimurti 3,60,00,000/- 3,08,99,041/- 21,23,021/- Finvest Pvt. Ltd K.K. Patel 89,32,500/- 61,43,922/- 26,73,752/- 20.Merely on the basis of returned income, the Assessing Officer jumped to the conclusion that these lenders were not having sufficient funds to advance the money

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

63,229/- 20,62,494/- Finvest Ltd Trimurti 3,60,00,000/- 3,08,99,041/- 21,23,021/- Finvest Pvt. Ltd K.K. Patel 89,32,500/- 61,43,922/- 26,73,752/- 20.Merely on the basis of returned income, the Assessing Officer jumped to the conclusion that these lenders were not having sufficient funds to advance the money

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

63,229/- 20,62,494/- Finvest Ltd Trimurti 3,60,00,000/- 3,08,99,041/- 21,23,021/- Finvest Pvt. Ltd K.K. Patel 89,32,500/- 61,43,922/- 26,73,752/- 20.Merely on the basis of returned income, the Assessing Officer jumped to the conclusion that these lenders were not having sufficient funds to advance the money

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

63/ 56 SOT 473(Hyd) held where amount of capital gains claimed as exempted under section 54F is not utilized in construction of residential house within period of 3 years, it will be charged to capital gains in year in which period of 3 years expires, however, exemption already granted shall not be denied. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

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

63,79,000/1,26,54,892). Thus, excess deduction allowed u/s 54F as per Ld. Pr. CIT is Rs. 13,94,503. From the above table it is evident that what has been disputed by Ld. Pr. CIT is the cost of new residential house which has to be taken for the purpose of computation of deduction

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

63,94,000/- 2.3 Registry as executed between the assessee and Shri Rakesh Agrawal for sale of 29,27,000 79 agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 3,46,27,000/- 2.4 Registry as executed between the assessee and Shri Rakesh Agrawal for sale of 23,51,000 87 agricultural land for a consideration

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

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 as under: “4. I have carefully considered the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE., INDORE vs. MP ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Acit, M.P. Entertainment & 1(1), Developers Private Ltd., Indore. 94-101, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ C-21 Malls, Vs. Indore (Revenue /Appellant) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aaecm8668D Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2024

63,59,504/- (rupees six crore sixty three lakhs fifty nine thousand five hundred four only) for the same Assessment Year. The CIT(A) has held that rental income derived by the respondent - assessee from leasing out the properties in the mall falls under the head of "income from business" and not under the head of the "income from

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

63 is the acknowledgement of reply in respect of the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 04.06.2018. 11. Upon examination of the records, the Ld. AO accepted the market value of the property owned by the assessee admeasuring 675 sq. mtr. at Rs.1,13,244/- per sq.mtr. and the exchanged property owned by Hasanand Khemlani admeasuring

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

63 is the acknowledgement of reply in respect of the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 04.06.2018. 11. Upon examination of the records, the Ld. AO accepted the market value of the property owned by the assessee admeasuring 675 sq. mtr. at Rs.1,13,244/- per sq.mtr. and the exchanged property owned by Hasanand Khemlani admeasuring

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