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

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

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

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

disallowed Rs.\n25,17,000/- out of total emoluments of Rs. 30,17,000/- and added back to the\nincome of the Assessee as the scheme was on voluntary basis not compulsory\nas per 2nd proviso of Section 10

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

10) (a) of the Income Tax Acl, as amender! with effect from 01.04.2005?\n(b) Has not the iligh Court erred in law in disallowing the claim for deduction under section

SHRI GUPTNATH BAL SHIKSHAN SAMITI MACHALPUR,MACHALPUR vs. ITO WARD RAJGARH, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in\nterms mentioned above

10(23C), which disallows exemption for non-filing, is applicable from AY 2023-24 and not for AY 2017-18. There is no other provision disallowing exemption for non-filing of return.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

section 80-\nIB(10) of the I.T. Act and, therefore, the income from such project is deductible\nunder the said provisions. The learned CIT(A) erred and not justified in his\nfindings that the appellant is not eligible for the deductible u/s 80IB(10) of the I.T.\nAct and, therefore, the findings of the learned CIT(A) be quashed

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

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

PROF. RAJENDRA SINGH SHIKSHAN SAMITI,MANDSAUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU AND ITO (EXEMPTION), UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act, 1961. 5 I.T.A. No. 417/Ind/2024 Rajendra Singh Shikshan Samiti v. DCIT 8. The matter was carried in appeal and the ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the same on merits, in absence of any response from the assessee to the notice of hearing

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

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

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

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

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

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

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

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