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

disallowance made u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act by the lower authorities was deleted and assessee’s claim u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was allowed by this Tribunal after examining the facts of the case and also following the settled judicial pronouncements. Relevant extract of the order of this Tribunal are reproduced below: 12. We have heard both

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&

disallowed in the subsequent years on the ground that project is not completed before time limit prescribed in the amended provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions: (i) Sahara States vs. ACIT in ITANo.520/Hyd/2011 dated 17.10.2018 (ITAT, Hyderabad) (ii) M/s Sahara States Hyderabad vs. DCIT in ITANo.1498/Hyd/2012 and others dated

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&

disallowed in the subsequent years on the ground that project is not completed before time limit prescribed in the amended provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act. Ld. AR has also relied upon following decisions: (i) Sahara States vs. ACIT in ITANo.520/Hyd/2011 dated 17.10.2018 (ITAT, Hyderabad) (ii) M/s Sahara States Hyderabad vs. DCIT in ITANo.1498/Hyd/2012 and others dated

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

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

22 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. receipts/income was much more than the prescribed limit. Thus the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) was an incorrect claim, which was apparent from the information regarding the amount of income in the return itself. As such the return was correctly processed as per the provisions of section

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

22 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. receipts/income was much more than the prescribed limit. Thus the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) was an incorrect claim, which was apparent from the information regarding the amount of income in the return itself. As such the return was correctly processed as per the provisions of section

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

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

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

disallowing the deduction. Ld. DR submitted that on account of the concrete observations made by lower authorities, the assessee cannot be said to a developer and builder, the assessee is only a work contractor who has sold plots to the buyers and undertaken construction-contract. Therefore, according to Ld. DR the assessee is not eligible for deduction

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

22,803/- against entry No. 16 being remaining amount out of Rs. 11,91,53,786/-. Ld. AR submitted that had there been a separate space/column for reporting of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab), the assessee would have easily reported therein and there would not have been any problem at the time of assessment. 6. Ld. AR also made

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 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 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 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

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 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

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 the entire exemption. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances. Thus, ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed

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 80-IB(10), the date of completion of project shall be taken as 15.12.2008/24.12.2010 i.e. the date on which completion-certificate was issued by local authority. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to deduction. 22. For this issue, the assessee has filed an application alongwith declaration in Form No. 8 u/s 158A(1) for all three