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

2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. It has to take colour and be considered in the context of 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

2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. It has to take colour and be considered in the context of 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

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 8018(10), hence it is fully eligible for the said deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) at Rs. 3,33,72,475 which be kindly allowed. (4) That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the eligibility of deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) be kindly adjudicated with reference to the law prevailed on the date of approval

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 8018(10), hence it is fully eligible for the said deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) at Rs. 3,33,72,475 which be kindly allowed. (4) That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the eligibility of deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) be kindly adjudicated with reference to the law prevailed on the date of approval

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

10% of the concealed amount of Rs.24,89,76,375/- has been imposed as penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. 7. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee submitted as follows: The appellant is an individual, presently aged nearly 51 years. The appellant is regularly assessed to Income-Tax for the last many years. A search

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&

2. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals except the quantum of 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&

2. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals except the quantum of 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

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

section 80P(4) prohibits deduction in such cases. 10. We have considered rival submissions of both sides. Admittedly, there is no dispute on facts that (i) the assessee is a “co-operative society” but not a “co- operative bank” and (ii) the assessee has earned interest from “co-operative banks”. Now, the controversy before us is purely legal i.e. whether

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance of such expenditure if the same is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the services or facilities for which the payment is made or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the payee. Thus, what is sought to be covered by the provisions section 40A(2)(a) is expenditure in respect of which deduction is claimed

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 12A(2) and therefore perfectly eligible for\nexemption u/s 11 / 12. Hence the Ld. AR requested to\ndirect the Ld. AO to allow exemption u/s 11 / 12 to the\nassessee, if for any reason the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab)\nis not allowed.\n\n9.\nPer contra, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of lower\nauthorities

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

DXC TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

disallowance made by the AO was therefore against the provisions of law.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "14A", "143(3)", "142(1)", "10(35)", "115JB", "270A" ], "issues": "Whether the Assessing Officer properly recorded satisfaction as required by Section 14A(2

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

2 above in appeal before any appellate authority or for a reference before the High Court under section 256 or the Supreme Court under section 257 or in appeal before the Supreme Court under section 261.” 3.1 Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the issue involved in ground no.1 of the assesse’s appeal is identical as substantial

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

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Acit Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) Pan: Aaccd 6124 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

10 of 25 Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Assessment year 2018-19 expression 'manufacture' in the sense it is defined in the Act. Both the High Courts have understood the expression, manufacture' in its ordinary/normal sense (as pointed out by this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd.5). Indeed, they have not even referred to the definition in Section 2

MP STATE CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 8. In view of but has been discussed above, I am of the consider view that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction claimed by the Assessee Society u/s. 80P (2)(d) of the Act, hence Assessing Officer is directed to allow the same.” 12.On examination of facts

MP STATE COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 8. In view of but has been discussed above, I am of the consider view that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction claimed by the Assessee Society u/s. 80P (2)(d) of the Act, hence Assessing Officer is directed to allow the same.” 12.On examination of facts

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

disallowed by the Ld. AO. On the merits of this issue of allowability of the claim of interest on income tax the Ld. AR has submitted that it was only a mistake and due to inadvertence the claim was made therefore, he has not disputed that the said claim is not allowable. However, the assesse has challenged the impugned order

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest income received by the assessee on the fixed deposit made with Bhopal Co-operative Central Bank on the ground that the only interest or dividend received on the investment made with the other Co-operative Society is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2