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 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 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

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

64,53,255/- 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08. Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition relating to unexplained cash credit and interest paid there on and unexplained expenditure along with the relevant ground raised by the assessee. However the addition for disallowance of deduction u/s 24 claimed by the assessee

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

64,53,255/- 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08. Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition relating to unexplained cash credit and interest paid there on and unexplained expenditure along with the relevant ground raised by the assessee. However the addition for disallowance of deduction u/s 24 claimed by the assessee

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

64,53,255/- 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08. Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition relating to unexplained cash credit and interest paid there on and unexplained expenditure along with the relevant ground raised by the assessee. However the addition for disallowance of deduction u/s 24 claimed by the assessee

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property along with land appurtenant thereto, hence there is no question in respect deduction u/s 54/54F. With due humble request it is submitted to your honour that we have exchanged property at Rs. 7,64,60,000/- adopted by the stamp authority, which is full value consideration for both the parties. Because properties are not exchanged below the value

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property along with land appurtenant thereto, hence there is no question in respect deduction u/s 54/54F. With due humble request it is submitted to your honour that we have exchanged property at Rs. 7,64,60,000/- adopted by the stamp authority, which is full value consideration for both the parties. Because properties are not exchanged below the value

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

64,265/- (1,22,28,892*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

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

64 ITAT,(Tribunal).” In support of contention that exemption u/s 54 would be available even if the construction within statutory period, where the entire sale consideration is interested in purchase of land/construction of house. 6. On the contrary Ld. DR opposed the submission and submitted that case law would not support the case of the assessee as the assessee failed

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

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

House property and Rs 9,15,600/- was claimed from Income from Other sources. 6.3] The assessee has utilised its interest bearing funds for advancing to different parties and interest income was earned from the same. The assessee had claimed deduction to the extent of Interest received. Hence, claim of deduction of Interest against the interest income of the assessee

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

section 54F was claimed on account of investment in capital gain account and partly in construction of a new house. 4.2 ·You have, claimed that transfer of the said property took place during the AY 2014-15., however while determining sale consideration, you have adopted the value of sale agreement (l.e. Rs.97,65,0001-.) which was entered into during

THE PR CIT-1 , BHOPAL vs. BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY., BYHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanipr. Cit-1 Bhopal Dugdh Sangh Sahakari Bhopal Maryadit Diary Plant, Near Habibganj Vs. Railway Station Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaaab0221D

property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co- operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction 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)

section 54F provides options to the assessee to invest even within a period of one year before the date on which transfer took place and there is no precondition imposed by the provision to the effect that the property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset

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)

section 54F provides options to the assessee to invest even within a period of one year before the date on which transfer took place and there is no precondition imposed by the provision to the effect that the property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset

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)

section 54F provides options to the assessee to invest even within a period of one year before the date on which transfer took place and there is no precondition imposed by the provision to the effect that the property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed return of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. Page 3 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024-

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito, Kalra, 1(1), बनाम/ Agar Road, Ujjain Ganesh Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

properties, namely Ruby Vila No. 4 for Rs. 31,64,050/- (1/3rd of 94,92,150/-) and Ruby Villa No. 6 for Rs. 35,78,150/- and on the strength of investment, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F. However, the AO denied benefit of exemption on the footing that the assessee had purchased two residential houses whereas section