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’. It is for this reason that the aforesaid show- cause notice was issued. The assessee in reply to the said notice raised various objections to the aforesaid proposed move of the Assessing Officer. Some of these objections included: (a)The assessee was only a licensee in respect of the aforesaid premises and the actual owner was NDMC. Thus

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’. It is for this reason that the aforesaid show- cause notice was issued. The assessee in reply to the said notice raised various objections to the aforesaid proposed move of the Assessing Officer. Some of these objections included: (a)The assessee was only a licensee in respect of the aforesaid premises and the actual owner was NDMC. Thus

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’. It is for this reason that the aforesaid show- cause notice was issued. The assessee in reply to the said notice raised various objections to the aforesaid proposed move of the Assessing Officer. Some of these objections included: (a)The assessee was only a licensee in respect of the aforesaid premises and the actual owner was NDMC. Thus

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’. It is for this reason that the aforesaid show- cause notice was issued. The assessee in reply to the said notice raised various objections to the aforesaid proposed move of the Assessing Officer. Some of these objections included: (a)The assessee was only a licensee in respect of the aforesaid premises and the actual owner was NDMC. Thus

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’. It is for this reason that the aforesaid show- cause notice was issued. The assessee in reply to the said notice raised various objections to the aforesaid proposed move of the Assessing Officer. Some of these objections included: (a)The assessee was only a licensee in respect of the aforesaid premises and the actual owner was NDMC. Thus

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY MEHTA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit (Central)-1, Shri Sanjay Mehta, बनाम/ Bhopal Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Agepm2676G Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Sanjay Mehta, Dcit (Central)-1, बनाम/ Indore Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Agepm2676G Assessee By Shri Sanjay Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

house property bought jointly by appellant and his wife stood fully explained. The AO has by the addition of this income apparently taxed, an application of income already offered and taxed separately hence this addition needs to be deleted. Accordingly I allow this ground of appeal. We accordingly confirm the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the revenue

SHRI KRISHAN BAHADUR SAXENA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:1997-98

property. The impugned assessment order was framed on 20.03.2002 but it was served upon the assessee on 12.12.2008. 3. Subsequent, thereto the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 12.01.2009. Challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings, addition of Rs.10,12,000/- for investment in house

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)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

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)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

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)

property is to be purchased out of the consideration received on account of transfer of the capital asset. The ld. CIT(A) noted that undoubtedly, the receipt of on-money is on account of sale of land which is a capital asset and as the appellant has invested in a residential house within a period of one year before

SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR PANDEY INDORE,INDORE vs. ITO 2 (1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08 Mr. Mahendra Kumar Pandey Ito-2(1) बनाम/ 8/5, Nihalpura Jawahar Marg, Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Agqpp2969M Appellant By Shri Kapil Rathi, Ca Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta Cit-Dr & Shri R.P. Mourya Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2007-08 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 16.03.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 30.11.2011 By Ito-2(1), Indore. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassessment proceedings assessee gave various details about the source of investment for the purchase of property valuing at Rs.17,06,100/-. Learned Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO) was not convinced with the source of investment totalling to Rs.5,08,100/- and added it to the income disclosed by the assessee at Rs.1,40,873/- in the return of income

ANIL FIROJIYA,BHAKT NAGAR UJJAIN vs. DY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Anil Firojiya, Dy. Commissioner Of 6, Bhakt Nagar, Income-Tax, बनाम/ Dashera Maidan, Assessment Unit, Vs. Ujjain New Delhi (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaipf7302A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024

house was carried out after F.Y. 2012-13. From the information uploaded in Insight portal by the DDIT-II, Indore, it had been emerged out that the payment to the tune of Rs. 10,29,672/- was borne by the appellant for the FY 2017-18 relevant to assessment year 2018-19 towards construction of the said property under consideration

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

house property was spread over during the period from assessment year 2004-05 to 2006-07. However, the AO considered the same for A.Y. 2007-08, whereas the ld. CIT(A) has directed u/s 150(1) of the Act to take necessary action in terms of report of the DVO in the respective assessment years

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

housing projects later on. In the affidavit filed by the sellers at PB 337-339, they have clearly stated that they were not much aware of the assessee company and therefore the transaction was done in cash. Thus, the payment was made in cash, as the parties demanded the payment in cash. He relied on the case of Gurdas Garg

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

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

housing projects later on. In the affidavit filed by the sellers at PB 337-339, they have clearly stated that they were not much aware of the assessee company and therefore the transaction was done in cash. Thus, the payment was made in cash, as the parties demanded the payment in cash. He relied on the case of Gurdas Garg

ABHISHEK DHANOTIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A.” [emphasis supplied] 4. From the above mentioned circular, it is evident that provisions of section 153C are applicable in specific circumstances when any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belong or belongs

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanations furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act in respect of sale of two immovable properties and computed long-term capital gain by adopting the stamp duty valuation, resulting in an addition of ₹77,98,016/-. The Assessing Officer further made

SHRI KHEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property purchased. He merely relied on the statement given by the seller. If he would have taken independent enquiry by referring the matter with the Valuation Officer, the controversy could have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. 4. In view of the foregoing conclusions, we find no error in the order of the Income

THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI VINOD VAISH, BHOPAL

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property purchased. He merely relied on the statement given by the seller. If he would have taken independent enquiry by referring the matter with the Valuation Officer, the controversy could have been avoided. Failing to refer the matter was a fatal one. 4. In view of the foregoing conclusions, we find no error in the order of the Income