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), the entirety of project including development of infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR, ‘entire project’ would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes the construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the case of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from assessee through registered Sale-Deeds

NEERA KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

73,50,020/- from relinquishment of right; claimed exemption u/s 54F of Rs. 52,53,008/- on the basis of new investment in a residential house; and thereby declared taxable gain of Rs. 20,97,012/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny-assessment and the Ld. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3). Subsequently,the Ld. PCIT examined

MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

73,400/- The case was selected for complete scrutiny. In the case of the assessee notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 23.08.2018 and notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 31.10.2019 02. In response, replies were filed by the assessee and after considering the submissions made the assessee, the assessing officer after disallowing

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

section 80-IB(10), the entirety of project including development\nof infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR,\n'entire project' would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes\nthe construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the\ncase of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from\nassessee through registered Sale

SHRI LAV NARANG,UJJAIN vs. PCIT,, UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

section 263 of the Act and issued following show cause notice to the assessee (relevant extract is reproduced below): “In this case, assessee filed return of income of the A.Y.2015-16 on 31.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs.49,15,730/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 30.12.2017 by the AO Ujjain at the total income of Rs.80

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

73,507/- during the financial year 2009-10 (relevant to assessment year\n2010-11). Unfortunately, no supporting bills or vouchers were provided for\nthese expenses. Additionally, the claimed exemption under Section 54 is Rs.\n10,50,000/-, but no relevant supporting documents have been submitted.\nGiven the fact that the expenses filed do not correspond to the FY relevant

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

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. LIFE STYLE INFRATECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

73,20,677/- on the basis of Page 84 of LPS-4 found during the course of the search giving the calculations and the rate per sq. ft. for 2 and 3 BHK flats with the service-tax at the rate of 3.09% Page 4 of 36 ACIT (Central)-2, Indore Vs. Lifestyle Infratech

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

house property, profit and gains of business or profession or capital gains nor the income from other sources. 4.3 In view of the above, contentions of the assessee are not found tenable and therefore, amount of Rs. 58,78,145/- in form of excess stock, Rs. 52,86,831/-in form of sales and not recorded in its regular books

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

73,64,000/-. The assessee has further claimed Rs. 25,00,000/- towards construction of house. In total the assessee has claimed Rs. 85,86,419/- as exemption u/s 54F. But, corroborated evidences, such as MAP passed by town and country planning, bills for construction-expenses of house to substantiate the submission of the assessee has not been submitted

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

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

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

House Property and income from running a restaurant. Return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2010-11 was filed on 22.09.2011 at Rs.2,18,555/- and agriculture income of Rs.1,26,500/- and for Assessment Year 2011-12 return of income was filed on 14.02.2012 declaring income of Rs. 2,50,459/- and agriculture income

CHANDRA SAHU,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(4), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

House Property and income from running a restaurant. Return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2010-11 was filed on 22.09.2011 at Rs.2,18,555/- and agriculture income of Rs.1,26,500/- and for Assessment Year 2011-12 return of income was filed on 14.02.2012 declaring income of Rs. 2,50,459/- and agriculture income

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)

house property, relying upon documents statements of the firm furnished by the assessee before CIT(A) as additional evidence, without providing any opportunity to be assessing officer to rebut the same, when it is mandatory as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules at Ld. CIT(A) shall not take into account any evidence produced under Rule

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)

house property, relying upon documents statements of the firm furnished by the assessee before CIT(A) as additional evidence, without providing any opportunity to be assessing officer to rebut the same, when it is mandatory as per Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules at Ld. CIT(A) shall not take into account any evidence produced under Rule

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

section\n80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n9. The Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sky Builders & Developers reported in 14\ntaxmann.78 held that where the assessee sold plots to respective customers by\nregistering sale deed and thereafter constructed the building at an agreed price, it has\nto be concluded that the assessee merely worked