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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property' and 'Income from business' is accepted, then the depreciation allowance against the common area maintenance charges ought to have been computed qua the actually constructed and completed area of building of the Mall instead of the actual occupancy level of the Mall. ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property' and 'Income from business' is accepted, then the depreciation allowance against the common area maintenance charges ought to have been computed qua the actually constructed and completed area of building of the Mall instead of the actual occupancy level of the Mall. ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years

SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR BAFNA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 54F could not be allowed. It cannot be the intention of the legislature to accept whatever assessee says without proper evidence in support of that claim. Accordingly, the action of the AO was confirmed. 5. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has sold the Shri Sushil Kumar Bafna

BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

property. It is immaterial if such purchase has been evidenced by a registered deed or not. Merely on account of absence of registered sale deed, the assessee should not be disentitled to exemption under Section 54F. The same has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal v. CIT (2014) 46 taxmann 300/ 225 taxmann

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

Housing Projects Ltd – [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 – order pronounced on 01.03.2012 – HEAD NOTE – “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 2004- 05 - Assessee sold an immovable property and claimed capital loss after indexation - Commissioner had doubts about valuation and sale consideration received but he had not examined said aspect

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

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

79,00,000/-, an amount of Rs 1,59,30,060/- was added to the total income of the appellant which in any case was not justified. The amount as added by the assessing officer is dealt in detail hereunder:- 4.4.1] SMT ANJANA BHACHAWAT OF Rs 5,00,000/- The appellant had received loan of Rs 5,00,000/- from

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

house property has agreed, to buy another property for self- occupation and secures possession of the property within one year from the date of sale of other property, he is entitled for exemption from capital gains under s.54(1) notwithstanding registration of sale deed beyond the period of one year. The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench

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)

79,04,952/- on account of undisclosed investment for purchase of plots in ‘Pulak City’ project without appreciating the facts and evidences brought in to light by the AO during assessment proceedings. Grounds of appeal in IT(SS)ANo.77/Ind/2017, Smt. Reena Devi Chugh 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred

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)

79,04,952/- on account of undisclosed investment for purchase of plots in ‘Pulak City’ project without appreciating the facts and evidences brought in to light by the AO during assessment proceedings. Grounds of appeal in IT(SS)ANo.77/Ind/2017, Smt. Reena Devi Chugh 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred

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)

79,04,952/- on account of undisclosed investment for purchase of plots in ‘Pulak City’ project without appreciating the facts and evidences brought in to light by the AO during assessment proceedings. Grounds of appeal in IT(SS)ANo.77/Ind/2017, Smt. Reena Devi Chugh 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

79,700/- in respect of the land purchased in the name of son of the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. 9. The Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and submitted that law is very clear. There is no ambiguity under the law. The investment as required for deduction

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

79,688/- in new residential property and claimed exemption u/s 54F. However, the AO rejected assessee’s claim for the reason that the property was purchased on 25.03.2010 which was after 31.07.2009 being the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1). 4. With regard to (i), Ld. AR for assessee himself made a clear assertion standing

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

housing-project” must be completed within the specified time. In fact, that is also the intention of the Parliament that entire project as approved by local-authority must be completed. Further, we need to rule out the proposition that even if a part of the project is completed, deduction is allowed because if that is permitted, a person may complete

KALPANA GOSWAMI,BHOPAL vs. I.T.O. 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Kalpana Goswami, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.955, Banganga, 1(1), बनाम/ North T.T.Nagar, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Awgpg5729E Assessee By Shri Milind Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

section 68 to 69A in Para No. 5.7 of appeal-order, hence the assessee’s grievance does not survive. Ld. DR for revenue did not have any objection against AR’s prayer to withdraw additional ground. In view of consensus by both sides, the additional ground is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Now, we are required only to adjudicate the merit