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 80IB(10) of the Act. However, the ld AO is directed to disallow claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act with respect of two units as discussed above in the respective years. Accordingly, the ld. AO is directed to allow deduction of Rs.10,81,30

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 80IB(10) of the Act. However, the ld AO is directed to disallow claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act with respect of two units as discussed above in the respective years. Accordingly, the ld. AO is directed to allow deduction of Rs.10,81,30

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 80IB(10) of the Act. However, the ld AO is directed to disallow claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act with respect of two units as discussed above in the respective years. Accordingly, the ld. AO is directed to allow deduction of Rs.10,81,30

SAHARAYN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)\narose. This is explicit clear from the provision of the said section which is enumerated as\nunder:-\n\"40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38 the following\namounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head \"\nProfits and gains of business or profession,\" -\n\"(ia) [thirty

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

disallowed Rs.\n25,17,000/- out of total emoluments of Rs. 30,17,000/- and added back to the\nincome of the Assessee as the scheme was on voluntary basis not compulsory\nas per 2nd proviso of Section 10

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

disallowing the claim for deduction under section 801B\n(10) (s) of the Acl, in spite of a finding of fact by the income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the\nultimate fact finding authority, that the Completion Certificate dated 24/12/2010 illed by\nthe petitioner clearly montions that the project was completed in March 2008?\n(d) Has not the High Court erred

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 80-IB(10), the entirety of project including development of infrastructure must be undertaken by assessee. According to Ld. DR, ‘entire project’ would mean development as a cohesive unit which includes the construction of houses with development of essential amenities. In the case of assessee, the buyers have first acquired ownership of plots from assessee through registered Sale-Deeds

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

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

Section 80IB(10)(c) of the Act. In so holding, we also agree with the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in [2012] 206 TAXMAN 584 (CIT v. Vandana Properties), which was decided by the Bombay High Court on similar lines as in the assessee's case before us." 14. Moving further relating to pro rata eligibility permission

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

SHRI ABHAY DARE,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Abhay Dare Ito-1(1) R-18, Gtb Complex Bhopal New Market, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adqpd5119C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024

Section 801B(10) of the Act and further that the appellant had acted as a mere contractor and not as a developer and builder of the housing project as envisaged us 801B(10) of the Act. Therefore the appellant was not eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the profits derived Page 13 of 15 ITANo.832/Ind/2016

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