ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S AGRAWAL CONSTRUCTION CO., BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

section. The appellant has made claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) wherein, the permission certificate and completion certificate from the local authority have been obtained within cutoff date which is the most basis requirement to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10). 16. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the Revenue could

M/S AGARWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,BHOPAL vs. DYPTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing It(Ss)A Nos.233 To 238/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2006-07 To 2011-12 M/S. Agrawal Construction Co. Acit, 1(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaefa8225H It(Ss)A No.224 To 226/Ind/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12 Acit, 1(1) M/S. Agrawal Construction बनाम/ Bhopal Co. Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaefa8225H Assessment Year: 2012-13

section. The appellant has made claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) wherein, the permission certificate and completion certificate from the local authority have been obtained within cutoff date which is the most basis requirement to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10). 16. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the Revenue could

D.K CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (3), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

TDS.” 2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assesse has stated at bar that due to smallness of disallowance the assessee does not press ground no.2 of the grounds of appeal and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. Ld. DR has raised no objection if ground no.2 of the assesse’s appeal is dismissed

M/S. ARIHANT CHERITABLE TRUST,INDORE vs. THE ITO (TDS)-1, INDORE

In the result, we find no force in the ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

section 133A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on the premises of the appellant on 15-05-2014 to verify the TDS compliances. A.3] During the course of TDS Survey proceedings, the assessing officer opined that the appellant was liable to deduct TDS at the rate of 10

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 10(23C)(iv) as also held in the above judicial pronouncements. On consideration of these facts in the light of the aforesaid judgments, we are of the view that the authorities below are not justified in disallowing the entire exemption. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 10

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 10(23C)(iv) as also held in the above judicial pronouncements. On consideration of these facts in the light of the aforesaid judgments, we are of the view that the authorities below are not justified in disallowing the entire exemption. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed. 10

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

10. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(1)(c), Memorandum to Finance Bill 2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear that: (a) The fee payable u/s 234E is a charging provision

SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

10. The ld. DR submitted that a harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(1)(c), Memorandum to Finance Bill 2015 and the case-laws on this issue makes following points unambiguously clear that: (a) The fee payable u/s 234E is a charging provision

AJAY AGARKAR,UJJAIN vs. CIT(A), MADHYA PRADESH

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Ajay Aagarkar Nfac House No.4, Kalpataru Delhi Avenue, Dewas Road, Near बनाम/ Rukmani Motors Vs. Ujjain (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abhpa2638L Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Nerkar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement .01.2025

10(10AA) of the Act 61 and the amount of leave salary drawn by the assessee on or after the date of absorption in BSNL ( being PSU ) will be taxable , subjected to the exemption limit of Rs.3 lakhs as per clause (ii) of the aforesaid section. 3.4 In support of his contention he relied on an internal instruction issued

THE ITO, (EXEMPTION), INDORE vs. M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

Section allow exemption of income, and deals with charitable trusts, hence, provision has the similarity. Further, the Hon'ble High Court in above case has held that the expenditure of the earlier year can be set off against the income of subsequent year. Therefore, respectfully following decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujrati Samaj

M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

Section allow exemption of income, and deals with charitable trusts, hence, provision has the similarity. Further, the Hon'ble High Court in above case has held that the expenditure of the earlier year can be set off against the income of subsequent year. Therefore, respectfully following decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujrati Samaj

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

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

10% & sustained the order of DCIT(TDS) Indore which is bad in law unjustified and unwarranted should be deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-I erred in dismissed grounds of appeal No.2 of CIT appeal for the correct head of section

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

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

10% & sustained the order of DCIT(TDS) Indore which is bad in law unjustified and unwarranted should be deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-I erred in dismissed grounds of appeal No.2 of CIT appeal for the correct head of section

M/S DHAR AUTHOMOTIVE PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, the second issue for lower/non-deduction of TCS

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

10% & sustained the order of DCIT(TDS) Indore which is bad in law unjustified and unwarranted should be deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-I erred in dismissed grounds of appeal No.2 of CIT appeal for the correct head of section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS) does not arise in the present case as there is no income per se and taxability of income per se in the present scenario. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the notifications issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein both these institutes have been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of Clause 2 of sub-Section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS) does not arise in the present case as there is no income per se and taxability of income per se in the present scenario. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the notifications issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein both these institutes have been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of Clause 2 of sub-Section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS) does not arise in the present case as there is no income per se and taxability of income per se in the present scenario. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the notifications issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein both these institutes have been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of Clause 2 of sub-Section

M/S. STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( TDS) -2, BHOPAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

TDS) does not arise in the present case as there is no income per se and taxability of income per se in the present scenario. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the notifications issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein both these institutes have been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of Clause 2 of sub-Section