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

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

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

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

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(23C)(iiiab),(iiiad)and vi. The question

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(23C)(iiiab),(iiiad)and vi. The question

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

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 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 80IB(10), which was made effective from 1st April, 2001.” (c) M/s Vardhman Builders Vs. ITO – ITA No. 559/Ind/2020 dated 09.5.2012 – ITAT Indore: Page 23 of 26 M/s. Balaji Sterling Builders ITA No.597/Ind/2016& ITANo.692/Ind/2018 Assessment year 2010-11 “2. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. The Assessing Officer has disallowed

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

23,25,840/- is wrong and untenable and shall be deleted.” 4. In Ground No. 1 the assessee has claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in sustaining the addition, whereas the issue whether the appellant is eligible u/s 10(23C) was debatable and therefore, same could not Page 2 of 7 National Law Institute University

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

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

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

23 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 varying offers, even offers like “buy 2 BHK, get 3 BHK”, to buyers which in itself indicates that the assessee could not collect any uniform price from buyers. This supports assessee

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

disallowance of Rs.43,29,927/- made by the A.O. u/s 80IB(10) of IT Act, 1961. 2. allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Aeven though the assessee acted in the capacity of contractor and did not own the land and no colonizer licence was obtained by the assessee 3. allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB

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

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

disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction