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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

House Properties” the Ld. CIT(A) mainly relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years–2011-12 to 2014-15 - 13 – Court in the matter of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the income derived

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

House Properties” the Ld. CIT(A) mainly relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years–2011-12 to 2014-15 - 13 – Court in the matter of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the income derived

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

65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable under the head

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

65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable under the head

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

65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable under the head

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

65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable under the head

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

65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable under the head

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

65,040/- 2 Purvi Finvest Ltd 5,00,000/- 63,782/- 3 K.K. Patel Finance Ltd 40,00,000/- 3,08,740/- 4 East West Finvest India 27,00,000/- 77,293/- Ltd 1,02,00,000/- 6,14,855/- Addition of Rs.5,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2006-07 for procuring loans. S.No. Name of the Company Unsecured

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

65,040/- 2 Purvi Finvest Ltd 5,00,000/- 63,782/- 3 K.K. Patel Finance Ltd 40,00,000/- 3,08,740/- 4 East West Finvest India 27,00,000/- 77,293/- Ltd 1,02,00,000/- 6,14,855/- Addition of Rs.5,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2006-07 for procuring loans. S.No. Name of the Company Unsecured

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

65,040/- 2 Purvi Finvest Ltd 5,00,000/- 63,782/- 3 K.K. Patel Finance Ltd 40,00,000/- 3,08,740/- 4 East West Finvest India 27,00,000/- 77,293/- Ltd 1,02,00,000/- 6,14,855/- Addition of Rs.5,25,000/- made for Assessment Year 2006-07 for procuring loans. S.No. Name of the Company Unsecured

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

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

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 of the case, the assessment

SHRI ISHWAR PATEL,DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR

In the result, ground no. 4 in both the years are also

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 148 of the Act dated 18.1.2000 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed the return of income on 3.3.2000 disclosing income from house property at Rs. 30,720/- and agricultural income at Rs. 65

SHRI ISHWAR PATEL,DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR

In the result, ground no. 4 in both the years are also

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 148 of the Act dated 18.1.2000 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed the return of income on 3.3.2000 disclosing income from house property at Rs. 30,720/- and agricultural income at Rs. 65

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

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

65%) of the disputed property to the assessee Shri Gaurav Tekriwal. However, the owner of property who was under dispute with his tenant M/s Fairdeal Marwar Garages Pvt. Ltd. was not the party of this documents. For ready reference, the document is reproduced as under:- [Reproduced in appeal-order of CIT(A)] Page 7 of 38 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Assessment

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

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