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

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

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

houses. ( Pg. 102 of PB) Clause 13 of the said agreement clearly provides that the assessee would do all the acts to get the property registered in the name and in the state as requested by the said party. However, the builder shall continue to have the possession of the property till the completion of the agreement. Under these circumstances

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

section 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner

PRADEEP PINJANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

house Rs.\n60,00,000/- (Proportionate exemption claim Rs 35,17,111/-) without giving\nproper opportunity for production/verification of evidences, related therewith.\n\n4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was\nnot justified to confirm the addition made by Ld. AO by ignoring the claim for\nloss from business amounting

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

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 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was pending before the Rajasthan High Court. However, in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the local Public Works Department rates are to be applied and adopted in place of Central Public Works Department rates, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment

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 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was pending before the Rajasthan High Court. However, in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the local Public Works Department rates are to be applied and adopted in place of Central Public Works Department rates, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment

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 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was pending before the Rajasthan High Court. However, in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the local Public Works Department rates are to be applied and adopted in place of Central Public Works Department rates, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment

AKHILESH SHUKLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Income-Tax Officer, 18/2, Rizwan Bagh, 1(1), बनाम/ Vip Road, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afops5580E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

house-property but no evidence was Page 2 of 7 Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(1), Bhopal. ITA No.160/Ind/2023 – AY 2011-12 furnished. Therefore, the AO made an aggregate addition of Rs. 5,70,000 u/s 69 treating those entries as unexplained. Agreed by addition so made, the assessee carried matter in first appeal but could not succeed

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

79,944/- as\n'application to charitable purpose'; and also deducted 15% 'standard\nexemption' u/s 11(1)(a) on full amount of Rs.2,27,31,112/-. Basically, the\nAO's understanding is that the activity of assessee is covered u/s 11(4)/(4A)\nbeing in the nature of 'business' incidental and therefore CBDT Circular