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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

8. We may also point out that in ITA No. 1254 of 2010, which pertains to the assessment year 1999- 2000 originally no such addition was made. However, reassessment proceedings were started by issuance of notice under section 143(2) read with section 147 of the Act and the Tribunal quashed those reassessment proceedings. It is not necessary M/s.Sheetu Educational

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

8. We may also point out that in ITA No. 1254 of 2010, which pertains to the assessment year 1999- 2000 originally no such addition was made. However, reassessment proceedings were started by issuance of notice under section 143(2) read with section 147 of the Act and the Tribunal quashed those reassessment proceedings. It is not necessary M/s.Sheetu Educational

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

8. We may also point out that in ITA No. 1254 of 2010, which pertains to the assessment year 1999- 2000 originally no such addition was made. However, reassessment proceedings were started by issuance of notice under section 143(2) read with section 147 of the Act and the Tribunal quashed those reassessment proceedings. It is not necessary M/s.Sheetu Educational

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

8. We may also point out that in ITA No. 1254 of 2010, which pertains to the assessment year 1999- 2000 originally no such addition was made. However, reassessment proceedings were started by issuance of notice under section 143(2) read with section 147 of the Act and the Tribunal quashed those reassessment proceedings. It is not necessary M/s.Sheetu Educational

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

8. We may also point out that in ITA No. 1254 of 2010, which pertains to the assessment year 1999- 2000 originally no such addition was made. However, reassessment proceedings were started by issuance of notice under section 143(2) read with section 147 of the Act and the Tribunal quashed those reassessment proceedings. It is not necessary M/s.Sheetu Educational

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property” takes into account an independent residential unit. On this aspect, they have relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Vidya Prakash Talwar, reported in 25 (1981) CTR 220 (Del). Thus, according to the assessee the claim under Section 54 of the Act should be allowed. Sangeeta

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

8 of 21 ITANo.245/Ind/2024 Mahendra Singh Chawla 53A. Part performance. Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from whichthe terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property

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

8. Ld. Counsel for the assesee relied on following judgments; i) East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. V(1961) 42 ITR 49 (S.C) ii) Azimganj Estate Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT (2013) 352 ITR 82(Cal) iii) New Delhi Hotels Ltd. V(2014) 360 ITR 187 (Del) 24 Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supporting the orders

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

8. Ld. Counsel for the assesee relied on following judgments; i) East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. V(1961) 42 ITR 49 (S.C) ii) Azimganj Estate Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT (2013) 352 ITR 82(Cal) iii) New Delhi Hotels Ltd. V(2014) 360 ITR 187 (Del) 24 Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supporting the orders

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

8. Ld. Counsel for the assesee relied on following judgments; i) East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. V(1961) 42 ITR 49 (S.C) ii) Azimganj Estate Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT (2013) 352 ITR 82(Cal) iii) New Delhi Hotels Ltd. V(2014) 360 ITR 187 (Del) 24 Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supporting the orders

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

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 54 was to be allowed. 7. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee could not able to construct the residential house within the prescribed time limit of three years from the date of transfer. Since the assessee wanted to join three plot of land together so that a palatable house could be made for his family. The total area

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

house property’ and not as ‘business income’ and for that reason made the impugned Page 9 of 22 ITA No. 471/Ind/2023 - AY 2016-17 SRK Dev Build Pvt. Ltd disallowances of deductions, the AO was very much wrong in stepping further and making a worse conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars qua those disallowances and thereby invoking section

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

property on 15.01.2016 and made the valuation on 15.01.2016 as noted in his valuation report. [Clause 2 of Part I and clause (c ) of Part III at PB 13 and 15] c. Cost of construction – Clause 41 – Year of commencement and year of completion: 2012-14 [PB 15] d. Valuation report also states that ‘valuation done for cost of construction

SHRI SHIV CHARAN SINGH BAIS,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO WD-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

property" 5 Shivcharan Singh (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of [one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased], or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, then], instead of the capital gain being

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

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

8,45,890 1,01,500 3 103, Horizon, Saket Nagar 25,05,000 3,00,000 Self-occupied property at Old 4 1,50,000 Palasia Total 10,18,580 We find that copy of repayment schedule/ loan statement in respect of the loan taken from ICICI Bank Ltd. and State Bank of India have been filed on Page