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

5 of 14 ITANo.23/Ind/2022 D.K. Construction the assessee that the effect of amended clause (a) of sub- Section 10 of Section 80IB, which has come into force with effect from 1st April, 2005, has retrospective effect or that it is unjust in any manner or incapable of compliance at all. Similarly, the requirement of securing completion certificate issued

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

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Assessee has claimed\nthat the Assessing Officer has wrongly added amount of Rs. 25,17,000/- on\naccount of disallowing of compensation under BSNL Retirement Scheme 2019.\nFurther, the Assessing Officer has wrongly allowed exemption u/s 10(10B) of\nthe Act on account of compensation under scheme approved by Central\nGovernment

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

Appeal is allowed

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

5. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10,81,30,132/- made by AO in AY 2012-13 on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80- IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the order

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

Appeal is allowed

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

5. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10,81,30,132/- made by AO in AY 2012-13 on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80- IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the order

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

Appeal is allowed

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

5. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10,81,30,132/- made by AO in AY 2012-13 on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80- IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the order

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

Appeal is allowed

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

5. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10,81,30,132/- made by AO in AY 2012-13 on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80- IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the order

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

Appeal is allowed

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

5. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.10,81,30,132/- made by AO in AY 2012-13 on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80- IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the order

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

5)\nDepartmental Representative\n(6)\nGuard File\nPage 40 of 40\nBy order\nAssistant Registrar\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": {"facts": "The revenue filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) that allowed deduction under section 80-IB(10) to the assessee, a real estate firm, for three housing projects: D.K. Honey Homes, D.K. Devasthali

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

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

disallowed by AO but re-allowed by CIT(A). 13. Referring to the orders of lower-authorities, Ld. DR made following contentions: (i) The assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down in section 80- IB(10) for allowability of deduction which is very much clear from following defaults made by assessee: (a) First condition of section 80-IB(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

5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in holding the view that "It cannot be said that the appellant firm has derived profit from the business of developing and building housing project as per section 80-IB(10) of the 1.T. Act", therefore disallowed

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms mentioned above

5), the claim for deduction under section 80P could be made by an assessee in a return filed within the time prescribed for filing such returns under any of the above provisions. The amendment to Section 80AC with effect from 1-4-2018, however, mandated that for an assessee to get a deduction under section

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - 30% of the expenses on which TDS\nwas not deducted\n(i) Rent & Utility charges\n1,29,43,872\n(ii) Salary Expenses\n85,34,595\n(iii) Co-operative Educator Expenses\n193,28,93,248\n(iv) Payment to Contractors\n1,86,718\n(v) Professional Charges\n15,79,826\nAssessed income

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 36(1)(va). M/s.Vijay Pulses Page 4 of 8 5. Regarding 1st component of disallowance amounting to Rs. 2,10

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

10:- Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant challenged addition of Rs. 9,33,62,482/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of artificial losses. Out of this amount addition of JTs. 3,89,04,955/- has been made on substantive basis and balance addition of Rs. 5,44,57,527/- has been made on protective basis since

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:- Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant challenged addition of Rs. 9,33,62,482/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of artificial losses. Out of this amount addition of JTs. 3,89,04,955/- has been made on substantive basis and balance addition of Rs. 5,44,57,527/- has been made on protective basis since

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:- Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant challenged addition of Rs. 9,33,62,482/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of artificial losses. Out of this amount addition of JTs. 3,89,04,955/- has been made on substantive basis and balance addition of Rs. 5,44,57,527/- has been made on protective basis since

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