THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

House Properties” the Ld. CIT(A) mainly relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years–2011-12 to 2014-15 - 13 – Court in the matter of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the income derived

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

House Properties” the Ld. CIT(A) mainly relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Years–2011-12 to 2014-15 - 13 – Court in the matter of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the income derived

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

loss includes Rs 6,65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable

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

loss includes Rs 6,65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable

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

loss includes Rs 6,65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable

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

loss includes Rs 6,65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable

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

loss includes Rs 6,65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable

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

house property’ and not as ‘business income’ and for that reason made the impugned Page 9 of 22 ITA No. 471/Ind/2023 - AY 2016-17 SRK Dev Build Pvt. Ltd disallowances of deductions, the AO was very much wrong in stepping further and making a worse conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars qua those disallowances and thereby invoking section

M/S BANSAL EXTRACTION & EXPORT P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit Export Pvt. Ltd. Central-1 3Rd Floor Tawa Complex, Bittan Bhopal Vs. Market E-4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

set off of losses, expenditure, deduction etc are allowable. I find that the stand taken by the Ld AO was as per the decision of Hon'ble, Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs CIT [2001] 247 ITR 290 (Gujarat) has held that scheme of sections 69, 69A and 69C shows that where nature

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

set off or carry forward of loss so we need to focus on the head“Aggregation of income” which covers Section 66 to 69D of the Act. The word aggregation of income nowhere makes a distinction about the head of income as to whether it is income from salary, income from house property

SANDEEP KUMAR MUNDRA ,BURHANPUR vs. ITO, BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Mundra, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ S.K. Enterprises, Burhanpur Vs. Kalabagh Emagrid, Burhanpur (Pan:Abtpm8551C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manoj Phadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

loss on house property. The assessee has two properties out of which one is let out property. The Ld. AR thereafter contended that the “impugned order” is an ex-parte order. That the Ld. CIT(A) had fixed three hearings in the matter. In hearing fixed on 29.01.2021 vide notice dated 19.01.2021 the assessee had sought adjournment and that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

set of documents as submitted by the assessee before us it appears that on 19.09.2017, the ITO issued the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act; the same is appearing at Page Nos. 50 to 53 of the Paper Book filed before us. It appears that the limited scrutiny was for ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

set of documents as submitted by the assessee before us it appears that on 19.09.2017, the ITO issued the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act; the same is appearing at Page Nos. 50 to 53 of the Paper Book filed before us. It appears that the limited scrutiny was for ITA Nos. 138 & 110/Ind/2021 [Kalpana Jain & Hasanand Khemlani

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

Housing Projects Ltd – [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 – order pronounced on 01.03.2012 – HEAD NOTE – “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 2004- 05 - Assessee sold an immovable property and claimed capital loss after indexation - Commissioner had doubts about valuation and sale consideration received but he had not examined said aspect

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

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

losses from under Heed house property at Rs 393,700/- and same is set off during the year. 7. The assessee

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

loss of Rs. 80,23,177/- on account of sale of shares.” 2. The assessee is an individual who filed return of income for the relevant AY 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,78,540/-. The case was subjected to scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued from time to time

SHRI VINAYAK KALANI,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Vinayak Kalani, Dy. Cit, 6Th Floor, 1(1), Treasure Island, Indore. बनाम/ 11, Tukoganju Main Road, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Atgpk8379P Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva, Adv. & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024

house-property of Rs. 30,000/-, loss from other sources of Rs. 37,41,259/- and deductions under Chapter VI-A of Rs. 1,61,568/-. The assessee declared loss of Rs. 37,41,259/- from other sources as under: “Income from Other sources (Chapter IV F): Interest from Saving Bank A/c 1,20,315 Interest Item

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Properties Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), wherein it was held that the profit derived from a particular eligible Industrial undertaking is qualified for deduction u/s.80IB without reduction of loss suffered by any other eligible industrial undertaking, subject to gross total income of assessee. Thus, this ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for all the years under appeal