M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance. The grounds raised for A.Y.2007-08 are reproduced as under: “1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of claim of Rs. 64,27,070/- made by the appellant under section 801B(10

M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance. The grounds raised for A.Y.2007-08 are reproduced as under: “1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of claim of Rs. 64,27,070/- made by the appellant under section 801B(10

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

disallowed by the A.O. The view of A.O. was confirmed by CIT(A), ITAT and HC. While dealing with the issue of allowability of exemption under relevant section, Hon'ble Apex Court has beautifully analysed and adjudicated one of the twin conditions, which is found common in all the three sub sections, 10

M/S RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIK VISHWAVIDHALYA,HOSANGABAD vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

disallowed by the A.O. The view of A.O. was confirmed by CIT(A), ITAT and HC. While dealing with the issue of allowability of exemption under relevant section, Hon'ble Apex Court has beautifully analysed and adjudicated one of the twin conditions, which is found common in all the three sub sections, 10

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 80IB(10) of the Act has been complied with by the assessee specially completion certificate. However, regarding balance 12 flats, there was no completion certificate obtained from the concerned authority and therefore, the deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act has been rightly denied in respect of those 12 flats. The facts further demonstrate that the assessee has accepted disallowance

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 80IB(10) of the Act has been complied with by the assessee specially completion certificate. However, regarding balance 12 flats, there was no completion certificate obtained from the concerned authority and therefore, the deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act has been rightly denied in respect of those 12 flats. The facts further demonstrate that the assessee has accepted disallowance

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 80IB(10) of the Act has been complied with by the assessee specially completion certificate. However, regarding balance 12 flats, there was no completion certificate obtained from the concerned authority and therefore, the deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act has been rightly denied in respect of those 12 flats. The facts further demonstrate that the assessee has accepted disallowance

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 80IB(10) of the Act has been complied with by the assessee specially completion certificate. However, regarding balance 12 flats, there was no completion certificate obtained from the concerned authority and therefore, the deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act has been rightly denied in respect of those 12 flats. The facts further demonstrate that the assessee has accepted disallowance

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 80IB(10) of the Act has been complied with by the assessee specially completion certificate. However, regarding balance 12 flats, there was no completion certificate obtained from the concerned authority and therefore, the deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act has been rightly denied in respect of those 12 flats. The facts further demonstrate that the assessee has accepted disallowance

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

10)(a) must suffer the consequence of disallowance or withdrawal of the benefit claimed by him on that count. 28. Accordingly, these appeals succeed. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside; and in the facts of the Page 6 of 14 ITANo.23/Ind/2022 D.K. Construction present case, the decision of the Assessing Officer to disallow deduction under Section

M/S BALAJEE STERLING BUILDER,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both of the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 801B(10) and hence the deduction claimed should not have been disallowed. It is respectfully submitted that the ground

M/S. NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee while processing intimation u/s 143(1) but this approach itself is not legal because the issue of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) or 10(23C)(iiiad) is a debatable issue and cannot be dealt with in the proceedings of section

THE DCIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. AYUSHMATI EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of Excess of income over expenditure.. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.90,31,280/- eve3n though approval 10(23C)(vi) was not granted to the society by the competent authority and thereby ignoring the decision of the I.T.A.T. Amritsar Bench in the case

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assesse is disposed off in terms of

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

Section 8018 (10) (a) of the Income Tax Acl, as amender! with effect from 01.04.2005? (b) Has not the iligh Court erred in law in disallowing

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

section 80-IB(10) of the I.T. Act," therefore disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-IB(10) of the I.T. Act by the appellant

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. LIFE STYLE INFRATECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act is to be made only on the units which fail to comply with the conditions laid out u/s 80IB(10) of the Act which, in the instant case, relates to few flats and row houses, which were not able to satisfy the provisions of section

THE ITO, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. GLOBUS HOUSING, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

10)(a) must suffer the consequence of disallowance or withdrawal of the benefit claimed by him on that count. 28. Accordingly, these appeals succeed. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside; and in the facts of the present case, the decision of the Assessing Officer to disallow deduction under Section

M/S VIJAY PULSES,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Vijay Pulses, Dcit, Cpc, 12, Sajan Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafv 9714 E Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

section 36(1)(va). M/s.Vijay Pulses Page 4 of 8 5. Regarding 1st component of disallowance amounting to Rs. 2,10