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 u/s. 23 of the I.T. Act and no depreciation is allowable in respect of such income and after considering relevant facts of the case. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter the ground of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal” ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT

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

house property u/s. 23 of the I.T. Act and no depreciation is allowable in respect of such income and after considering relevant facts of the case. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter the ground of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal” ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT

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", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under

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

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

House property and Rs 9,15,600/- was claimed from Income from Other sources. 6.3] The assessee has utilised its interest bearing funds for advancing to different parties and interest income was earned from the same. The assessee had claimed deduction to the extent of Interest received. Hence, claim of deduction of Interest against the interest income of the assessee

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

81,609/- against her share in old house. Thus, the cost of house was reduced from Rs 41,57,868/- to Rs 24,76,259/-. The said old house was dismantled by the appellant. New MAP was sanctioned, copy of the sanction letter dt 03-04- 2013 is enclosed on Page No 119 to 122 of the Compilation The expenses

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

81,630/- & Rs. 62,10,754/- respectively. The cases were selected for scrutiny and the assessment-orders dated 21.12.2009 & 09.12.2011 respectively were passed after denying assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(10). The assessee carried matters upto ITAT, Indore in ITA No. 497/Ind/2012 & 19/Ind/2013. The ITAT, Indore passed order dated 25.11.2014 whereby the matters were restored

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

81 to 96 of the paper book, I find that the Bakshi family sold the subject property to some Khandelwal Chambers which at the relevant time was owned by the father of Shri Dipesh Khandelwal namely Shri Tulsiram Khandelwal, and other family members of Shri Dipesh Khandelwal. From the clause(3) of the aforesaid sale deed, I find that

DILIP BUILDCON LTD ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Acit Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) Pan: Aaccd 6124 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

house; or (c) any office appliances or road transport vehicles; or (d) any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession” of any one previous year.” 32AC (1) “Where

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)

house situated at 18, Manishpuri, Indore. The assessee has claimed pro- rata deduction of Rs.1,33,81,367/- thereby offering only a sum of Rs.50,12,179/- as long-term capital gain. According to the Assessing Officer, the on-money of Rs.2,08,00,000/- received by the assessee is not a normal receipt on sale of capital asset

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)

house situated at 18, Manishpuri, Indore. The assessee has claimed pro- rata deduction of Rs.1,33,81,367/- thereby offering only a sum of Rs.50,12,179/- as long-term capital gain. According to the Assessing Officer, the on-money of Rs.2,08,00,000/- received by the assessee is not a normal receipt on sale of capital asset

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)

house situated at 18, Manishpuri, Indore. The assessee has claimed pro- rata deduction of Rs.1,33,81,367/- thereby offering only a sum of Rs.50,12,179/- as long-term capital gain. According to the Assessing Officer, the on-money of Rs.2,08,00,000/- received by the assessee is not a normal receipt on sale of capital asset

GOVERDHAN LAL YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed return of AY 2015-16 declaring a total income of Rs. Page 3 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024-

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

Appeals are allowed

81,630/- & Rs.62,10,754/-\nrespectively. The cases were selected for scrutiny and the assessment-orders\ndated 21.12.2009 & 09.12.2011 respectively were passed after denying\nassessee's claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(10). The assessee carried matters\nupto ITAT, Indore in ITA No. 497/Ind/2012 & 19/Ind/2013. The ITAT,\nIndore passed order dated 25.11.2014 whereby the matters were restored

M/S. RAJDHANI LAND & HOUSING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S Rajdhani Land & Pr. Cit-1, Housing Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahfr4618J Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 20.09.2019. Rajdhani Land & Housing

81 – order pronounced on 17.10.1994 – Para 12 Rajdhani Land & Housing 12 – “From the aforesaid, it can well be said that the well-settled principle in considering the question as to whether an order is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue or not is to address oneself to the question whether the legitimate revenue due to the exchequer has been

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

Appeal is allowed

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

81,30,132/- in the year consideration. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is allowed.” 10. Before us, the Ld. DR representing the revenue made a detailed submission and supported the action of Ld. AO and disagreed with the decision of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR started his pleadings by inviting our attention to the provision of section

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

Appeal is allowed

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

81,30,132/- in the year consideration. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is allowed.” 10. Before us, the Ld. DR representing the revenue made a detailed submission and supported the action of Ld. AO and disagreed with the decision of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR started his pleadings by inviting our attention to the provision of section

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

Appeal is allowed

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

81,30,132/- in the year consideration. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is allowed.” 10. Before us, the Ld. DR representing the revenue made a detailed submission and supported the action of Ld. AO and disagreed with the decision of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR started his pleadings by inviting our attention to the provision of section

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

Appeal is allowed

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

81,30,132/- in the year consideration. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is allowed.” 10. Before us, the Ld. DR representing the revenue made a detailed submission and supported the action of Ld. AO and disagreed with the decision of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR started his pleadings by inviting our attention to the provision of section