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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23(1)(a) of the Act may not be invoked in order to determine the annual taxable value of the assessee property and determine the same at Rs.50,000/- per month in each case of Mobile Tower. 25. However, the Ld. AO was ultimately formed an opinion that : ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23(1)(a) of the Act may not be invoked in order to determine the annual taxable value of the assessee property and determine the same at Rs.50,000/- per month in each case of Mobile Tower. 25. However, the Ld. AO was ultimately formed an opinion that : ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers

MAHENDRA SINGH CHAWLA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimahendra Singh Chawla Dcit Circle -1(1) 4/35 Gram Pigdamber A.B. Indore Road Near Rao Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aazpc0120C Assessee By None Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .09.2024

73 (Delhi). 6.1 I have considered the submission of the appellant. As provided in section 2(47), the three conditions for deemed transfer are: 1. There is an agreement to sale for purchase/sale of the property between the buyer and seller. 2. Part consideration has been passed to seller from the buyer. 3. Possession of the property under consideration

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

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 to the assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer without going through the audited accounts unnecessarily gone on the fact that these creditors are not having sufficient income 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

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 to the assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer without going through the audited accounts unnecessarily gone on the fact that these creditors are not having sufficient income to advance the money

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

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 to the assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer without going through the audited accounts unnecessarily gone on the fact that these creditors are not having sufficient income to advance the money

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

73,04,318 Ld. AO in assessment order [Correct] has considered the entire cost of (1,22,28,892*75,58,768/1, new residential house i.e. Rs. 26,54,892) 75,58,768 as deduction u/s 54F. Computation of deduction u/s 54F is in dispute * 6 Deduction claimed u/s 54F 75,58,768 [Actual] 7 Excess deduction allowed

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

property shall be purchased in the name of the assessee; it merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed "a residential house". 8. This court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section

SHRI KAILASH BHAGWAN CHOUDHARY,INDORE vs. THE ITO 2(3), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

property shall be purchased in the name of the assessee; it merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed "a residential house". 8. This court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section

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

SHRI KRISHAN BAHADUR SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:1997-98

73,890/-. 4. During the course of appellate proceedings it was contended by the assessee that the Ld. AO has made very high pitched assessment making a huge addition completely ignoring the fact that the constructed area of the house is much less as to what has been shown in the assessment order and in the amount estimated for construction

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

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

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

properties and invested in construction of houses, vehicles and marriages of family members etc. He therefore contended that the order of the Ld. AO may kindly be restored and the addition may kindly be confirmed. IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. 23. Per Contra the Ld. Counsel

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

properties and invested in construction of houses, vehicles and marriages of family members etc. He therefore contended that the order of the Ld. AO may kindly be restored and the addition may kindly be confirmed. IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91,109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. 23. Per Contra the Ld. Counsel

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

SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA,DABRA vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

property purchased. He merely relied on the statement given by the seller. If he would have taken independent enquiry by referring the matter with the Valuation Officer, the controversy could have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. 4. In view of the foregoing conclusions, we find no error in the order of the Income