DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

250 (4, March 2013)? d) That the assessee is making contradictory and opportunistic claims of being a "developer" (for claiming 80-IA(4) benefit) and of being a "manufacturer" (for claiming benefit of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia))? e) intention of legislature for grant of benefit u/s 80-IA(4) as the main purpose of providing deduction under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

250 (4, March 2013)? d) That the assessee is making contradictory and opportunistic claims of being a "developer" (for claiming 80-IA(4) benefit) and of being a "manufacturer" (for claiming benefit of additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia))? e) intention of legislature for grant of benefit u/s 80-IA(4) as the main purpose of providing deduction under section

SHRI DR. LIYAKAT ALI KAPADIYA,UJJAIN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2013-14

depreciable capital assets covered by section 50 and in computing the capital gain arising from the said transfer by adopting the stamp duty valuation. [Para 20]" In the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Co. Circle IV(3), Chennai vs. MIL Industries Ltd. 142 ITD 428 it has been held as under:- "Whether whatever may be problems suffered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

250/- in respect of computing arm’s length price for the corporate guarantee given by the appellant on behalf of the AE. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,96,046/- made u/s 14A of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts

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

250/- in respect of computing arm’s length price for the corporate guarantee given by the appellant on behalf of the AE. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,96,046/- made u/s 14A of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts

M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

250/- in respect of computing arm’s length price for the corporate guarantee given by the appellant on behalf of the AE. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,96,046/- made u/s 14A of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

250/- in respect of computing arm’s length price for the corporate guarantee given by the appellant on behalf of the AE. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,96,046/- made u/s 14A of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

250 by CIT(Appeal)-II, Indore [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of order dated 28.07.2014 passed by DCIT (TDS), Indore [“AO”] u/s 201(1)/(1A) pursuant to the aforesaid revision-order dated 27.03.2014 passed by CIT (TDS), Bhopal u/s 263. 2. The background facts leading to these appeals are summed up as under: (i) ITA No. 415/Ind/2014

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

250 by CIT(Appeal)-II, Indore [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of order dated 28.07.2014 passed by DCIT (TDS), Indore [“AO”] u/s 201(1)/(1A) pursuant to the aforesaid revision-order dated 27.03.2014 passed by CIT (TDS), Bhopal u/s 263. 2. The background facts leading to these appeals are summed up as under: (i) ITA No. 415/Ind/2014

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

4(f) of the appellant are allowed.” 29. Admittedly, the AO has made estimation of rent on ALV upon invocation of provisions of Section 23 of the Act which can only be invoked if the income is computed under Section 22 of the Act. As we have already seen in the earlier ground that the income from leasing