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) 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

92 , wherein the similar issue has been discussed in detail. Hence, the Assessing officer was not justified in notionally adding an amount of Rs 19,83,732/- to the income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos

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

92 , wherein the similar issue has been discussed in detail. Hence, the Assessing officer was not justified in notionally adding an amount of Rs 19,83,732/- to the income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos

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

92 , wherein the similar issue has been discussed in detail. Hence, the Assessing officer was not justified in notionally adding an amount of Rs 19,83,732/- to the income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos

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

92 , wherein the similar issue has been discussed in detail. Hence, the Assessing officer was not justified in notionally adding an amount of Rs 19,83,732/- to the income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos

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

92 , wherein the similar issue has been discussed in detail. Hence, the Assessing officer was not justified in notionally adding an amount of Rs 19,83,732/- to the income of the assessee under the head of Income from House Property in light of detailed discussion in para 2.6 to 2.9 of this letter. M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos

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

92,350/- while offering the rental income for income tax. 3. That Ld.AO had alleged that the appellant has wrongly considered the rental income as income from house property instead the same should be offered to tax under the head Income from business since the assessee was engaged in the business of real estate during the said AY. 4. That

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

92,350/- while offering the rental income for income tax. 3. That Ld.AO had alleged that the appellant has wrongly considered the rental income as income from house property instead the same should be offered to tax under the head Income from business since the assessee was engaged in the business of real estate during the said AY. 4. That

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

92,350/- while offering the rental income for income tax. 3. That Ld.AO had alleged that the appellant has wrongly considered the rental income as income from house property instead the same should be offered to tax under the head Income from business since the assessee was engaged in the business of real estate during the said AY. 4. That

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

92,330/-. The assessee along with his wife and son have sold a piece of land admeasuring 3.607 hectares situated at R.G. Survey No. 1634, Ujjain on 22.03.2010 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,25,00,000 in which assessee`s share of consideration was at Rs.1,12,50,000. The assessee has claimed cost of indexation at Shri Sushil

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

92,88,000/- for stamp duty purposes. During assessment proceedings the valuation was challenged and the matter was referred to the DVO for valuation of the property. The DVO determined the value of the property at Rs.1,26,54,892/-. Satyanarayan Sharma /ITANo.426/Ind/2018 The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54B and 54F against the capital gains accruing on the sale

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

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

92,340 4,67,080 (2,33,540 (+) 2,33,540) 2 12, Dhenu Market 8,45,890 1,01,500 3 103, Horizon, Saket Nagar 25,05,000 3,00,000 Self-occupied property at Old 4 1,50,000 Palasia Total 10,18,580 We find that copy of repayment schedule/ loan statement in respect of the loan

MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

92,359/- was claimed as site expenses which almost three times from the amount which was claimed in previous year, Rs. 50,17,438/- was claimed under the head electricity expenses however no such expense was claimed during the previous year, Rs. 10,32,070/- was claimed as freight expenses which is almost five times of the amount which

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

92,81,150/- surrendered during the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act was purely a business income liable to normal rate of tax and both the lower authorities have erred in charging it with the tax rate @60% applying the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act by treating the alleged undisclosed income as income referred in Section

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito, Kalra, 1(1), बनाम/ Agar Road, Ujjain Ganesh Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

properties, namely Ruby Vila No. 4 for Rs. 31,64,050/- (1/3rd of 94,92,150/-) and Ruby Villa No. 6 for Rs. 35,78,150/- and on the strength of investment, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F. However, the AO denied benefit of exemption on the footing that the assessee had purchased two residential houses whereas section

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

92,452/-, Rs.2,66,948/- and Rs.2,44,417/- respectively. The time limit for issuance of notices u/s 143(2) of the Act stood expired in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 much before the date of conducting the search i.e. 29.1.2014 and therefore these three assessment years falls under the category of unabated/non abated assessments

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

section 263 is not permitted to substitute his estimate of income in place of the income estimated by the Assessing Officer. (vii) The Assessing Officer exercises quasi-judicial power vested in him and if he exercises such power in accordance with law and arrive at a conclusion, such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner