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 of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act to the appellant with respect to project ‘D.K Cottage’ was that the completion certificate was not issued for entire project. As regard, to the project namely, ‘D.K Cottage’ initially a lay out plan of the project for construction of colony on 180 plots was approved by the Town

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 of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act to the appellant with respect to project ‘D.K Cottage’ was that the completion certificate was not issued for entire project. As regard, to the project namely, ‘D.K Cottage’ initially a lay out plan of the project for construction of colony on 180 plots was approved by the Town

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 of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act to the appellant with respect to project ‘D.K Cottage’ was that the completion certificate was not issued for entire project. As regard, to the project namely, ‘D.K Cottage’ initially a lay out plan of the project for construction of colony on 180 plots was approved by the Town

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 of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act to the appellant with respect to project ‘D.K Cottage’ was that the completion certificate was not issued for entire project. As regard, to the project namely, ‘D.K Cottage’ initially a lay out plan of the project for construction of colony on 180 plots was approved by the Town

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 of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act to the appellant with respect to project ‘D.K Cottage’ was that the completion certificate was not issued for entire project. As regard, to the project namely, ‘D.K Cottage’ initially a lay out plan of the project for construction of colony on 180 plots was approved by the Town

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

disallowed the deduction claimed, on the grounds that the appellant firm had acted as a contractor in this project and not as a developer, which is an essential ingredient for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10). The assessing officer arrived at this conclusion based on the following three contentions. a) The appellant firm was not the owner of the land

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

disallowance made on\naccount of Leave Encashment. While\nallowing the appeal, the Hon'ble ITAT has\ncategorically relied upon and reproduced a\nlist of 22 identical matters wherein the issue\nstood conclusively decided in favour of the\nassessees, as recorded at pages 12-13 of the\nimpugned order. The present assessee also\nplaces reliance upon the said 22 decisions,\nthe

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

section 8013 of the Act as a whole has a\nprospective application?\nThe question of law raised by the assessee, as stated above clearly reveal, among\nother aspects, that the assessee has raised the objection only in respect of the ground\nnumber 2(d) of the revised grounds filed by the Department before the ITAT i.e. furnishing of\nCompletion Certificate

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

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act is to be made only on the units which fail to comply with the conditions laid out u/s 80IB(10) of the Act which, in the instant case, relates to few flats and row houses, which were not able to satisfy the provisions of section 80IB(10

VAISHALI DEVELOPERS ANDBUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

disallowance of the\nclaim of the appellant of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act for Rs.38,81,630/- for\nA.Υ. 2007-08 and for Rs.62,10,754/- for A.Y. 2009-10 made by the A.O. is\nhereby confirmed. Grounds No. 1 to 4 are dismissed.\"\nLd. AR informed the present status of assessee's cases

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

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

10) of section 80-IA are applicable; or 17. Any other transaction as may be prescribed. 13 M/s. Ruchi J. Oil Pvt. Ltd. And where the aggregate of such transactions entered into by the assessee in the previous year exceeds a sum of five crore rupees.” 4.5 There are two cumulative conditions for attracting the provisions of clause

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

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 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

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 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

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 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

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

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB on both grounds that the assessee has not developed the project but he has sold the Page 4 of 15 ITANo.832/Ind/2016 Abhay Dare individual plots to the buyers and then constructed the houses. Before the Tribunal the assesse has filed written submissions which are extracted as under: “The appellant is a builder

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

10 were allotted p at a premium of Rs. 40 per shares on 06.06.2012 on preferential basis after getting in principle approval from the Madhya Pradesh, Pune and Ahmadabad Stock Exchange. It is further submitted that both the companies i.e. M/s Malwa Trexim Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ahilya Trading Pvt. Ltd. were the existing share holder of the company