INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

72,984/- as deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act is not eligible and the said amount is proposed to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. It is noticed that the interest income of the assessee Co- operative Society out of its "investments" with other cooperative banks is not eligible for deduction

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

72,984/- as deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act is not eligible and the said amount is proposed to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. It is noticed that the interest income of the assessee Co- operative Society out of its "investments" with other cooperative banks is not eligible for deduction

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

72,450 18,724 0 Labour Supply Mishra 3.During the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) on 14/01/2020, 04/02/2020, 10/11/2020, (11/12) / 2020 (24/12) / 2020 and (19/1) / 2021 whereby the assessee was asked to furnish name, PAN, emailID, current address, etc of the sub-contractors. However, compliance on these points was not made. 4.Meanwhile, the AO also issued

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

72,10,437/- was collection received from the farmers against their loan. The assesse furnished the details/documents in this regard which is kept on record. Further the AO has also examined the further record regarding unsecured loans. The assesse has produced the relevant record of unsecured loan of Rs.3,49,31,603/- taken from Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Khandwa Page

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

72,400/-. However, assessee deposited Rs. 62,00,000/- in capital gain account scheme in the bank. Subsequently assessee purchased a new residential house for Rs. 2,02,15,584/- on 19.08.2016, thus assessee has invested in new residential property more than the sale consideration adopted by the stamp duty valuation authorities, hence LTCG if worked

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

house property and, therefore, should be treated as a capital gain for\nthe purpose of taxation. In this view of the matter, we do not find any force in\nthis appeal and dismiss the same.\nPer V. DONGZATHANG, A.M.\n7.\nI fully agree with my learned brother that the amount has to be assessed as\nincome of the assessee

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

72,070/- NIL 2014-15 30.11.2014 38520/- 30.11.2015 NIL NIL 4. During the course of assessment proceedings and while framing the assessment order, Ld. AO mentioned that no incriminating material was found during the course of search but asserted that since the assessee has been subjected to search additions can be made on other issues which comes across during

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

property. E- M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. return of income filed on 27.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs.51,72,569/- which comprises of depreciation loss at Rs.1,53,066/- and business loss of Rs.50,19,503/-. Case selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS for the reason ‘large unsecured loans’. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act duly served upon

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

72,610 2 Punjab National Bank, Habibganj 9,72,000 3 Allahabad Bank, Mata Mandir 1,71,000 4 Canara Bank 1,30,000 5 SBI 9,000 Total 14,54,610 42. During first appeal, the CIT(A) deleted entire additions by following order: “3.2.2 I have considered the facts of the case, material evidences on record, written submission

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

72,610 2 Punjab National Bank, Habibganj 9,72,000 3 Allahabad Bank, Mata Mandir 1,71,000 4 Canara Bank 1,30,000 5 SBI 9,000 Total 14,54,610 42. During first appeal, the CIT(A) deleted entire additions by following order: “3.2.2 I have considered the facts of the case, material evidences on record, written submission

RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Rajendra Kumar Dcit/Acit-2(1), Gupta, Bhopal B-72, Mansarovar, बनाम/ Shahpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaypg6045M Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2024

section 115BBE. 5. To understand the case of assessee, at the outset, we re-produce below the relevant portions of the orders of lower-authorities: (i) The AO made addition vide Para No. 4 of assessment-order as under: “4. Assessee has not submitted DSR registered regarding maintenance of day-to-day stock. Assessee has also not submitted complete cash

DEEPAK PAREKH,USA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 5A/other person as per rule 37BA(2)]\" but to no avail, as claim of TDS of Rs.14,59,120/- relating to spouse was still denied. (copy of relevant page of ITR 2 at page 9 of the Paper Book)\n10. The Assessing Officer (CPC) Bangalore passed another intimation u/s 143(1) on 02.03.2023, processing the revised return filed

SMT. BHARTI BHASNE,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

house property. There was a search and seizure operation u/s. 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the residential premises on 26.02.2009. 2.1. During the course of search, cash of Rs. 3,93,800/- was found and out of that Rs. 3,53,300/- was seized. There were jewelries of Gold and Silver were found in the residential premises

LATE SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR BHASNE THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. BHARTI BHASNE,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeals in IT(SS)A Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

house property. There was a search and seizure operation u/s. 132(1) of the Act was conducted in the residential premises on 26.02.2009. 2.1. During the course of search, cash of Rs. 3,93,800/- was found and out of that Rs. 3,53,300/- was seized. There were jewelries of Gold and Silver were found in the residential premises

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDORE

Appeals are allowed and revenue’s appeals

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

housing projects, other development project from the Government assessee is also casted with the responsibility of incurring expenditure on the public utility programs. The assessee is able to earn profits because the State Government give the benefit of providing powers to acquire urban and rural land for various projects at concessional rates. Government is able to gets land at concessional