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

house property is chargeable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we hold that the AO was not justified in charging of notional rental income in the hands of the assessee on building used for running of schedule by Jasleen Educational Service Society. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the all above grounds

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

house property is chargeable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we hold that the AO was not justified in charging of notional rental income in the hands of the assessee on building used for running of schedule by Jasleen Educational Service Society. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the all above grounds

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

house property is chargeable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision, we hold that the AO was not justified in charging of notional rental income in the hands of the assessee on building used for running of schedule by Jasleen Educational Service Society. In the light of above facts and circumstances, the all above grounds

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

89 ITD 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

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

89,32,500/- 61,43,922/- 26,73,752/- 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

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

89,32,500/- 61,43,922/- 26,73,752/- 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

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

89,32,500/- 61,43,922/- 26,73,752/- 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

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

89,910/- [PB31] Plot No. 382 on 15.023.2010 for Rs. 30,59,235/- [PB37] and Plot No. 383 on 15.03.2010 for Rs. 28,38,990/- [ PB 47]. The investment of Rs. 11,50,000/- was claimed towards construction of residential house on these three plots. The assessee was asked to furnish: - a) copy of Map/plan approved by the Municipal Corporation

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

89,533/- against Rs.28,59,057/- made by the AO in respect of Long Term Capital Gains. 4. Now the assessee has preferred the present appeal. Ground No.1 to 4 are against rejecting of claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act, therefore, all the grounds are being disposed of together. Ground No.5 is general in nature thus, the same

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

house. Total Investment u/s 54 F 89,44,991 89,44,991 Net Income from Long Term Capital Gain 1,93,656 3. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for following terms: S.No Reason for selection of case in scrutiny 1 Large deduction claimed u/s 54B,54C,54D, 54G, 54GA 2 Sale consideration of the Property

DILIP CHANDRASENRO MAHADIK,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Dilip Chandrasenrao Pr.Cit-2, Mahadik, Indore. बनाम/ 479, Kalani Nagar, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abwpm3141M Assessee By S/Shri Rajnish Vohra, Chetan Khandelwal & Nitesh Dawira, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023

89,63,885 0 Investment in House property u/s 54 Rs. 84,21,000/- (65,00,000/- plus 19,21,000) 7,00,000/- (Round off) cost of Repair” [Emphasis added] 5. However, the PCIT was not satisfied with the reply of assessee for the reasons mentioned by him in revision-order as under: “4. I have carefully considered

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.” 5.2 Thus it was found by the Hon’ble High Court that the investment was made by the wife of the assessee and therefore, to that extent the title is also vested in the name of the wife. In case in hand, we find that the entire payments for purchase of new land has been made by the assessee

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)

89,15,088/- in purchase of one residential 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

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)

89,15,088/- in purchase of one residential 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

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)

89,15,088/- in purchase of one residential 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

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property, business etc.. 3.02.2 That, besides admitting the total undisclosed income of 15,89,76,375/-, as aforesaid, during the course of recording the another statement under s. 132(4), of real brother of the appellant namely Shri G.S. Bhatia on 26-10-2007 [kindly refer PB Page No. 43], Shri G.S. Bhatia, on the appellant's request

SHASHI PRABHA SINGHANIA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act" for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065972504(1) dated 24.06.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred

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

89 and has observed that u/s 153A of the Act which enables carrying out a search or exercise of a power of requisition, assessment in furtherance thereof is contemplated. There is a mandatory issue of notice u/s 153(1A) of the Act and assess and reassess the total income of 6 assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant