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. 13. Per contra, the Ld. AR initially drew our attention to certain facts with reference to the documents placed in the Paper-Book. He carried us to Page No. 40 to 43 of the Paper-Book where a layout plan of 180 units dated 02.11.2006 approved by local-authority is placed. Then, he carried us to Page

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. 13. Per contra, the Ld. AR initially drew our attention to certain facts with reference to the documents placed in the Paper-Book. He carried us to Page No. 40 to 43 of the Paper-Book where a layout plan of 180 units dated 02.11.2006 approved by local-authority is placed. Then, he carried us to Page

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. 13. Per contra, the Ld. AR initially drew our attention to certain facts with reference to the documents placed in the Paper-Book. He carried us to Page No. 40 to 43 of the Paper-Book where a layout plan of 180 units dated 02.11.2006 approved by local-authority is placed. Then, he carried us to Page

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

section\n10(10B) of the Act are clearly attracted in the case of the appellant.\n3.10 Further, the decision dated 20.09.2023 of Jurisdictional\nHon'ble'ble ITAT Chandigarh A\" Bench was also perused wherein\nseveral appeals of employees of HTML-TD were taken up. The Hon'ble\nITAT opined in para 48 that the matter had been examined

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

section\n80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n9. The Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sky Builders & Developers reported in 14\ntaxmann.78 held that where the assessee sold plots to respective customers by\nregistering sale deed and thereafter constructed the building at an agreed price, it has\nto be concluded that the assessee merely worked

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) of the I.T. Act," therefore disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-IB(10) of the I.T. Act by the appellant, in respect of the project "Vaishali Nagar". 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of interest u/s 234B is unlawful and hence, be cancelled. 10. That

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

Appeals are allowed

disallowed the claim of the\nAssessee on the ground that Assessee had entered into two agreements\nnamely \"sale-deed\"for the sale of land and \"construction agreement\" for the\nconstruction the unit and therefore according to him, the Assessee was a\ncontractor and therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). We also\nfind that on identical facts

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

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

disallow deduction fully in case of violation of another condition, when both of those conditions are prescribed in the same manner in section 80-IB(10), the only difference is that former is prescribed in clause (c) and later is prescribed in clause (f) of section 80-IB(10). Ld. DR could not substantiate as to how any discrimination

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

34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present writ petition and issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17 th November, 2008 and mandamus is issued directing the respondents to grant approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act and the same shall be issued within six weeks from the date copy of this order

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

34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present writ petition and issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17 th November, 2008 and mandamus is issued directing the respondents to grant approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act and the same shall be issued within six weeks from the date copy of this order

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

34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present writ petition and issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17 th November, 2008 and mandamus is issued directing the respondents to grant approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act and the same shall be issued within six weeks from the date copy of this order

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

34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present writ petition and issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17 th November, 2008 and mandamus is issued directing the respondents to grant approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act and the same shall be issued within six weeks from the date copy of this order

M/S VIJAY PULSES,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Vijay Pulses, Dcit, Cpc, 12, Sajan Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafv 9714 E Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

section 143(1)(a) by means of disallowance made for late deposit of employees' share to relevant funds beyond date prescribed under respective Acts was proper. 6.4 In view of the above observations respectfully following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Ltd supra and Harrisons Malayalam Ltd supra and in the light

PROF. RAJENDRA SINGH SHIKSHAN SAMITI,MANDSAUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU AND ITO (EXEMPTION), UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

disallowance. 11. The ld. AR submitted a copy of the written submissions filed before the first appellate authority and has also submitted that the ld. AO was wrong in making adjustments to the total income while processing the return u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act, because the provisions of the Act does not allow any such adjustments, because

HARDA NAGAR BAL VIKAS SAMITI HARDA ,SARSWATI SHISHU MANDIR vs. ITO-1, HARDA, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

34,192\n27,19,994\nHarda Nagar Bal Vikash Samiti (Society)\n-\n(15,17,865)\nTotal\n2,36,39,736\n42,46,993\nSince the annual receipts exceeded the eligibility limit, the assessee ceased to be eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) from AY 2017-18. Therefore, the assessee filed an application to CIT(Exemption), Bhopal

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

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -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

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

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

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount