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 of Rs. 4,69,34,191/- after considering that the provisions of section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and held that the income from leasing out of profession u/s. 28 without appreciating the fact that the present case is running a mall and deriving income letting out of shopping mall as well as business income from common

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 of Rs. 4,69,34,191/- after considering that the provisions of section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and held that the income from leasing out of profession u/s. 28 without appreciating the fact that the present case is running a mall and deriving income letting out of shopping mall as well as business income from common

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 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 9 of 66 of Rs. 21,44,910/-without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 1.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional

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 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 9 of 66 of Rs. 21,44,910/-without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 1.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional

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 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 9 of 66 of Rs. 21,44,910/-without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 1.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional

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 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 9 of 66 of Rs. 21,44,910/-without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 1.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional

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 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 9 of 66 of Rs. 21,44,910/-without properly appreciating the facts of the present case and submission made before him. 1.2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the taxing of notional

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

90,150/- was made in purchase of new assets before the sale of original asset, with an intention to construct a residential house and an amount of Rs. 11.50 Lakh was claimed on account of construction of property. It was explained that the said amount of Rs. 33 lakhs were returned back to Smt. Pukhraj on 22.03.2010 when the amount

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

90,33,182/- cannot be considered as incidental to the business of the assessee. Therefore, cannot be allowed as business expenses. In view of the above there is no change of opinion. 3.4 In the case of Sambhav Media Limited, the assessee has claimed double deduction of depreciation on business asset while in this case the assessee has not used

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

90 taxmann.com 176 – order pronounced on 09.02.2018 – Satyanarayan Sharma /ITANo.426/Ind/2018 Para 7 – “It is in this backdrop that the question that we have to essentially take a judicial call on is as to what is the cost of the new residential house so purchased by the assessee at C 6 Anandvan Complex. As we do so, we must bear

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

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 80-IB(10), the entirety of project including development of infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR, ‘entire project’ would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes the construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the case of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from assessee through registered Sale-Deeds

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)

section 50C of the Act. 33 Mohanlal Chugh & others Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We find ourselves in full agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action

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)

section 50C of the Act. 33 Mohanlal Chugh & others Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We find ourselves in full agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action

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)

section 50C of the Act. 33 Mohanlal Chugh & others Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We find ourselves in full agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

90 days, that longer period shall apply. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable

SHRI NARAYAN DAS TOLANI,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

90,251/-. 5. During assessment proceedings, the house property was referred for valuation to the DVO u/s 142A of the Act who submitted the valuation report stating undisclosed investment in construction as under :- S.No. Period of Expenditure as Assessed cost of Differece construction stated by the construction (Rs.) assessee

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

property and enter into contract in its own name. Thus, the Vishwavidyalaya was established as a separate independent legal entity having its own independent existence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in several judgments including in the case of Visvesvaraya Technological University v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2016] 384 ITR 37 (SC) has categorically held that such a University