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

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA

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&

3 of 17 ITANo.271/Ind/2011 & ITANo.22/Ind/2012 Sahara States that a right vested in the assessee cannot be taken away by amended provisions by imposing a fresh condition the rule of promissory estoppel will apply. The amended provision of section 80IB(10) will be applicable only to those projects which has been commenced and approved after the amendment of section 80IB(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&

3 of 17 ITANo.271/Ind/2011 & ITANo.22/Ind/2012 Sahara States that a right vested in the assessee cannot be taken away by amended provisions by imposing a fresh condition the rule of promissory estoppel will apply. The amended provision of section 80IB(10) will be applicable only to those projects which has been commenced and approved after the amendment of section 80IB(10

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

3. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal with regard to the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IB(10)(a) of the Income Tax Act and instead the decision of the Assessing Officer to disallow

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 153A. Consequently on the issue the current position is that the loans stand accepted as genuine. In view of the above for the year under consideration the disallowance of interest on such loans on the ground that loans were treated as unexplained cash credits in earlier years is not a valid finding any more. The disallowance is therefore directed

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 153A. Consequently on the issue the current position is that the loans stand accepted as genuine. In view of the above for the year under consideration the disallowance of interest on such loans on the ground that loans were treated as unexplained cash credits in earlier years is not a valid finding any more. The disallowance is therefore directed

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 153A. Consequently on the issue the current position is that the loans stand accepted as genuine. In view of the above for the year under consideration the disallowance of interest on such loans on the ground that loans were treated as unexplained cash credits in earlier years is not a valid finding any more. The disallowance is therefore directed

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO -1 (5), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Essargee Construction Ito 1(5) Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Vs. A-10, Mezenine Floor Essarjee House Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaace 8852F Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2023

section 40(A)(3) of the Act. The AO accordingly made disallowance of the payment made by the assesse to ten parties included the electricity expenses and vehicle repair expenses. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made by the AO on account of electricity expenses but confirmed the other disallowance made by the AO. 4. Before

THE ACIT 3(2), INDORE vs. M/S. SIMRAN DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito-3(2), M/S. Simran Developers Indore 402, Mark Building, बनाम/ Saket Square, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Ackfs 1946 B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by making cash payment in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the seller Shri Jineshwar Lallulalji Jain was well known to the assessee and the seller was maintaining regular bank account. (c) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decision

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 143(3) for assessment-year [“AY”] 2012-13 and Page 1 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 2013-14, dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) for AY 2014-15, and dated 29.12.2019 u/s 143(3) for AY 2017-18; all passed by learned ACIT-2(1), Bhopal

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 143(3) for assessment-year [“AY”] 2012-13 and Page 1 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 2013-14, dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) for AY 2014-15, and dated 29.12.2019 u/s 143(3) for AY 2017-18; all passed by learned ACIT-2(1), Bhopal

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 143(3) for assessment-year [“AY”] 2012-13 and Page 1 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 2013-14, dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) for AY 2014-15, and dated 29.12.2019 u/s 143(3) for AY 2017-18; all passed by learned ACIT-2(1), Bhopal

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 143(3) for assessment-year [“AY”] 2012-13 and Page 1 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 2013-14, dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) for AY 2014-15, and dated 29.12.2019 u/s 143(3) for AY 2017-18; all passed by learned ACIT-2(1), Bhopal

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 143(3) for assessment-year [“AY”] 2012-13 and Page 1 of 38 D.K. Construction ITA No.34 to 37 & 24/Ind/2022 - AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15 & 2017-18 2013-14, dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) for AY 2014-15, and dated 29.12.2019 u/s 143(3) for AY 2017-18; all passed by learned ACIT-2(1), Bhopal

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

section 10 of the Act.\"\nDuring hearing before us, neither side has made any submission qua\nGround No. 1, 2 & 4. Therefore, Ground No. 1, 2 & 4 are treated as non-\npressed/non-pleaded and dismissed.\n8. Now, we are required to adjudicate only Ground No. 3 and Additional\nGrounds. We proceed to adjudicate the same.\nGround No. 3:\n9. In this

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

3) wherein the deduction u/s 80-IB(10) was disallowed qua three\nprojects undertaken by assessee, namely “D.K. Honey Homes”, “D.K.\nDevasthali\" and \"D.K. Cottage” for certain reasons as narrated in\nassessment-order. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first-appeals to CIT(A) and\nsucceeded. Now, the revenue has come in these appeals before us assailing\nthe orders of first-appeal

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

10. Apropos the second plea raised in Ground No.3 of the assessee's appeal contending that the disallowance is not called for as the alleged amount was not claimed as an expenditure during the year becomes infructuous and merely academic as we have already deleted the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act at Rs. 5,40,000/- while adjudicating

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

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

10. Apropos the second plea raised in Ground No.3 of the assessee's appeal contending that the disallowance is not called for as the alleged amount was not claimed as an expenditure during the year becomes infructuous and merely academic as we have already deleted the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act at Rs. 5,40,000/- while adjudicating