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

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

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

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

property jointly with Mr. D. P. Azad, her father-in-law on 2.1.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 95 lacs. The due date of filing of return as per Section 139(1) of the Act was 31.7.2006, but the assessee filed her return on 28.3.2007 and that extended due date of filing of return as per Section

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

House, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN AACCS4128C Appellant by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, CAs Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement 03.06.2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

House, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN AACCS4128C Appellant by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, CAs Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement 03.06.2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

9 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. Limited, Bhopal, I.T.A.No. 248/Ind/2012 ( I.T.A.T. Indore ). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption vs. Dhamaprakasha Rajakarya Praskta B.M. Sreenivasaiah Educational Trust,(2015) 59 Taxman 33 ( Karnataka ). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

9 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. Limited, Bhopal, I.T.A.No. 248/Ind/2012 ( I.T.A.T. Indore ). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption vs. Dhamaprakasha Rajakarya Praskta B.M. Sreenivasaiah Educational Trust,(2015) 59 Taxman 33 ( Karnataka ). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also

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

9, Ghyan Shree, Itwara Road, Bhopal after the demise of their father Shri Nitin Mehta on 10.12.2001. Subsequently, on 13.03.2012 the said house property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 29,00,000/- and 50% of it being the equal share to the tune of Rs. 14,50,000/- was paid to the assessee and her sister. The assessee

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

house property under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

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 under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

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 under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

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 under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

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 under as per provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act . The Ld. A.R. has relied in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Mumbai[2014] 52 taxmann.com 1567(SC)/ [2015] 228 Taxman 1(SC) wherein it was held that the essential condition, for a transfer of an immovable property referred to in clause

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

9, the appellant had declared the. ITA No.252/Ind/2017 (Shri Surendra Singh Bhatia vs. JCIT) Asst.Year.– 2008-09 - 11 - undisclosed income to the extent of Rs.14,00,00,000/- on account of unpaid freight, keeping in mind the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income-Tax Act] 1961. Likewise, in reply to the question No. 10, the appellant had declared