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

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

9. On the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the conditions stipulated in Section 54F stand fulfilled. It would be treated as the property purchased by the assessee in his name and merely because he- has included the name of his wife and the property purchased in the joint names would not make any difference. Such a conduct

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

Appeals are allowed

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

property, in respect of the project "Vaishali Nagar", to its customers and that registration of land is only made. It is also stated that the assessee has mainly acted as a contractor and not a builder and hence, disallowed the deduction claimed us 80-IB(10) of the I.T. Act by the appellant. 6. That on the facts

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

9 - c. Please explain and justified in respect of Capital Gains consideration in ITR is less than sale of property reported in 26QB/AIR or sales consideration with documentary evidences. d. Please explain and justified in respect of Large Deduction claimed us 54 with documentary evidences. e. Complete details of expenses related to transfer of property and cost of improvement with

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

9 - c. Please explain and justified in respect of Capital Gains consideration in ITR is less than sale of property reported in 26QB/AIR or sales consideration with documentary evidences. d. Please explain and justified in respect of Large Deduction claimed us 54 with documentary evidences. e. Complete details of expenses related to transfer of property and cost of improvement with

NEERA KOTWANI,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

house property” from properties other than self-occupied and actually let out. This has resulted in under-assessment of taxable income. 4. By the aforesaid show-cause notice, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the assessment-order may not be revised. In response thereto, the assessee made a detailed submission to Ld. PCIT vide reply dated

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. ITO, 4(3), BHOPAL, OFFICE OF ITO BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Property Tax receipts for A.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and\n2018-19 (PB 120-123)\nc. An application in this regard is pressed before your honours. It is\ntherefore prayed that the additional evidences which are clinching\nevidences; and supporting the stand of the assessee that a\nresidential house was let out may kindly be taken on record

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

9 Shaligram Borad 263 proceeding. In this case , the Pr CIT himself accepted that certificate was obtained from the bank and provided to him. In that case there was no justification for issuance of notice under section 263 of the Act on this count Jyoti Foundation [2013]357 ITR 388 (Delhi) DG Housing Project Ltd Deduction

KESHAV KANUNGO,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Keshav Kanungo, Acit, Flat No. A-603, Circle-2(1), Virasha Heights, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Danish Bridge, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Abvpk 2942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

house on 22.09.2017, however, the appellant has claimed that he has booked the flat on 15.07.2015. Therefore, I hold that the appellant’s investment was made within 2 years from the date of transfer of original asset. However, since the investment made in new asset is less than the net consideration, the appellant is entitled for proportionate deduction

THE PR CIT-1 , BHOPAL vs. BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY., BYHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanipr. Cit-1 Bhopal Dugdh Sangh Sahakari Bhopal Maryadit Diary Plant, Near Habibganj Vs. Railway Station Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaaab0221D

property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co- operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co- operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co- operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

MP STATE COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co- operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

MP STATE CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co- operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

SANKALP SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisankalp Sakh Sahkari Pr. Cit-1 Sanstha Maryadit Indore 1, C/O Smriti Nagrik Sahkari Vs. Bank Dayamandir Road Goshala Market, Mandsaur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeas0312G Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2024

property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co- operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under section

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co- operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the Page 7 of 16 Indore Pragtishil Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Mydt, Indore. Vs. I.T.Department, NFAC, Delhi -ITA No.317/Ind/2023 Assessment year 2018-19 limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area

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)

9. The only ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2013-14 pertains to additions of Rs.1,40,74,000/- on account of on- money received on sale of units in ‘Almas Elements’ project, Mohanlal Chugh & others Rs.1,75,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in property and Rs.3,79,04,952/- on account of undisclosed

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)

9. The only ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2013-14 pertains to additions of Rs.1,40,74,000/- on account of on- money received on sale of units in ‘Almas Elements’ project, Mohanlal Chugh & others Rs.1,75,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in property and Rs.3,79,04,952/- on account of undisclosed