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

30 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. 9.5 It is also pertinent to mention here that the word ‘substantially’ was not defined earlier in the Income-tax Act or Rules. However, Explanation to section 10(23C)(iiiab) has been inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2015 i.e. AY 2015-16 and also accordingly the Rules 2BBB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 have been inserted

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

30 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. 9.5 It is also pertinent to mention here that the word ‘substantially’ was not defined earlier in the Income-tax Act or Rules. However, Explanation to section 10(23C)(iiiab) has been inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2015 i.e. AY 2015-16 and also accordingly the Rules 2BBB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 have been inserted

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

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

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

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

30,983/- as application for charitable purposes against entry No. 9(i) which is a factual amount and Rs. 3,88,22,803/- 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

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

disallowing the claim for deduction under section 801B (10) (s) of the Acl, in spite of a finding of fact by the income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the ultimate fact finding authority, that the Completion Certificate dated 24/12/2010 illed by the petitioner clearly montions that the project was completed in March 2008? (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

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

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