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

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

23 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. concluded as: Notice u/s. 274 of the Act should be specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c}, i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. 8.4. The Hori'ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007J

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

23 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. concluded as: Notice u/s. 274 of the Act should be specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c}, i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. 8.4. The Hori'ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007J

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

23 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. concluded as: Notice u/s. 274 of the Act should be specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c}, i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. 8.4. The Hori'ble Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007J

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

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

Appeal is allowed

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

C building since engineers and architects could not design the structure of building in the absence of FSI. The details of follow up done by assessee with PMC have been duly appreciated by CIT(A). The legislative intent read that the clear provisions of the requisite section, do not permit any proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of Act. However

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

Appeal is allowed

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

C building since engineers and architects could not design the structure of building in the absence of FSI. The details of follow up done by assessee with PMC have been duly appreciated by CIT(A). The legislative intent read that the clear provisions of the requisite section, do not permit any proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of Act. However

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

Appeal is allowed

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

C building since engineers and architects could not design the structure of building in the absence of FSI. The details of follow up done by assessee with PMC have been duly appreciated by CIT(A). The legislative intent read that the clear provisions of the requisite section, do not permit any proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of Act. However

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

Appeal is allowed

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

C building since engineers and architects could not design the structure of building in the absence of FSI. The details of follow up done by assessee with PMC have been duly appreciated by CIT(A). The legislative intent read that the clear provisions of the requisite section, do not permit any proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of Act. However

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

Appeal is allowed

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

C building since engineers and architects could not design the structure of building in the absence of FSI. The details of follow up done by assessee with PMC have been duly appreciated by CIT(A). The legislative intent read that the clear provisions of the requisite section, do not permit any proportionate deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of Act. However

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

c) and (d) of sub-sec. (10). In the case of the assessee, the housing project was approved by the local authority on 24.11.2003 (i.e. before 1.4.2004), consequently, the assessee was to complete the construction on or before 31.3.2008. In sub-clause (ii) to Explanation, the word used is "shall" and not "may" before completion certificate is issued

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 SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

23] 3. Section 12AA(4) was inserted w.e.f. 01.10.2014 which provides that the registration u/s 12AA can be cancelled for violation of provisions of section 13(1). In the instant case, as mentioned in the show cause notice, assessment for AY 2010-11 was completed u/s 143(3) rws 147 by alleging that provisions of section 13(1)(c

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

23] 3. Section 12AA(4) was inserted w.e.f. 01.10.2014 which provides that the registration u/s 12AA can be cancelled for violation of provisions of section 13(1). In the instant case, as mentioned in the show cause notice, assessment for AY 2010-11 was completed u/s 143(3) rws 147 by alleging that provisions of section 13(1)(c

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

C Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Ms. Simiran Bhullar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 26.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 28.06.2022 आदेश / / / O R D E R / O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c