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

Appeal is allowed

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

disallowance. 13. Per contra, the Ld. AR initially drew our attention to certain facts with reference to the documents placed in the Paper-Book. He carried us to Page No. 40 to 43 of the Paper-Book where a layout plan of 180 units dated 02.11.2006 approved by local-authority is placed. Then, he carried us to Page

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

Appeal is allowed

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

disallowance. 13. Per contra, the Ld. AR initially drew our attention to certain facts with reference to the documents placed in the Paper-Book. He carried us to Page No. 40 to 43 of the Paper-Book where a layout plan of 180 units dated 02.11.2006 approved by local-authority is placed. Then, he carried us to Page

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

Appeal is allowed

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

disallowance. 13. Per contra, the Ld. AR initially drew our attention to certain facts with reference to the documents placed in the Paper-Book. He carried us to Page No. 40 to 43 of the Paper-Book where a layout plan of 180 units dated 02.11.2006 approved by local-authority is placed. Then, he carried us to Page

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

Appeal is allowed

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

disallowance. 13. Per contra, the Ld. AR initially drew our attention to certain facts with reference to the documents placed in the Paper-Book. He carried us to Page No. 40 to 43 of the Paper-Book where a layout plan of 180 units dated 02.11.2006 approved by local-authority is placed. Then, he carried us to Page

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

Appeal is allowed

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

disallowance. 13. Per contra, the Ld. AR initially drew our attention to certain facts with reference to the documents placed in the Paper-Book. He carried us to Page No. 40 to 43 of the Paper-Book where a layout plan of 180 units dated 02.11.2006 approved by local-authority is placed. Then, he carried us to Page

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

20,92,736/- on 27.03.2021. In the\nrevised return so filed, the assessee claimed full exemption of Rs.\n12,85,132/- u/s 10(10AA) in respect of leave encashment. Further,\nthe assessee claimed exemption of Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 10(10C) in\nrespect of ex-gratia under VRS without any change.\n(iii) The case of assessee was selected

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

disallowed\nthe claim of the Assessee on the ground that Assessee had entered into\ntwo agreements namely \"sale-deed\"for the sale of land and\n\"construction agreement\" for the construction the unit and therefore\naccording to him, the Assessee was a contractor and therefore not\neligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). We also find that on identical facts,\nthe

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in\nterms mentioned above

20,485/- made by the AO is upheld. Hence appeal\non this ground is dismissed.\nSecond ground states that "That the Ld. Further erred in initiating penalty\nu/s 270A and 271F of the Act.” These penalties being consequential in\nnature are bound to imposed. Hence appeal on this ground is also dismissed.\nIn the result appeal of the assessee

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

Appeals are allowed

disallowance of the\nclaim of the appellant of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act for Rs.38,81,630/- for\nA.Υ. 2007-08 and for Rs.62,10,754/- for A.Y. 2009-10 made by the A.O. is\nhereby confirmed. Grounds No. 1 to 4 are dismissed.\"\nLd. AR informed the present status of assessee's cases

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

Appeals are allowed

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

disallowance of the claim of the appellant of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act for Rs. 38,81,630/- for A.Y. 2007-08 and for Rs. 62,10,754/- for A.Y. 2009-10 made by the A.O. is hereby confirmed. Grounds No. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” Ld. AR informed the present status of assessee’s cases

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

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

20 of 36 ACIT (Central)-2, Indore Vs. Lifestyle Infratech P. Ltd. IT(SS)A Nos 27 to 29 and ITA No. 291/Ind/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14 this was due to the incentives/offers given by assessee from time to time as well as bargaining power of the buyers. Further, the fact that some buyers have not paid such

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

20-06-2023 confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 55,00,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Subsequently, my regular counsel consulted a senior counsel who advised my counsel to immediately file an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench challenging the levy of penalty 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

20(b) of the audit report, then, in our considered view, the requirement of section 143(1) of the Act viz. “disallowance of expenditure ….indicated in the tax audit report” stands satisfied and the Department is permitted to make disallowance in terms of section 143(1) of the Act. 6.3 With regards to the second argument of the counsel

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

disallowance. 11. The ld. AR submitted a copy of the written submissions filed before the first appellate authority and has also submitted that the ld. AO was wrong in making adjustments to the total income while processing the return u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act, because the provisions of the Act does not allow any such adjustments, because