M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance. The grounds raised for A.Y.2007-08 are reproduced as under: “1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of claim of Rs. 64,27,070/- made by the appellant under section 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act. 2. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance. The grounds raised for A.Y.2007-08 are reproduced as under: “1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of claim of Rs. 64,27,070/- made by the appellant under section 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act. 2. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

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

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

disallowing deduction by intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act is not proper.” 13. The Revenue has not rebutted the fact that the assessee had made claim u/s 10 as well as under section 10 in column no.13 in the return of income and also made the claim u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) as per column

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

disallowing deduction by intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act is not proper.” 13. The Revenue has not rebutted the fact that the assessee had made claim u/s 10 as well as under section 10 in column no.13 in the return of income and also made the claim u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) as per column

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

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

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

disallowance by observing as under: “4.3 I have carefully considered the findings recorded by the Id. AO as per the impugned order, the position of law and the facts of the case on record and the submission filed by the appellant. As per the provisions of section 80IB(10), deduction is available Page 8 of 26 M/s. Balaji Sterling Builders

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

10,000 Mahaveer Plywood 10,000 Ageco Cables 414 Vidya Corrugator 5,303 Shri Metal Containor 60,000 Total Rs.12,50,843 43. Apart from the above Rs.2,00,000/- was also paid to Jindal Polyster Limited by Shri Prem Chawla from his personal account, thus payment of Rs. 14,58,843/- has been made by Shri Prem

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

10,000 Mahaveer Plywood 10,000 Ageco Cables 414 Vidya Corrugator 5,303 Shri Metal Containor 60,000 Total Rs.12,50,843 43. Apart from the above Rs.2,00,000/- was also paid to Jindal Polyster Limited by Shri Prem Chawla from his personal account, thus payment of Rs. 14,58,843/- has been made by Shri Prem

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

10,000 Mahaveer Plywood 10,000 Ageco Cables 414 Vidya Corrugator 5,303 Shri Metal Containor 60,000 Total Rs.12,50,843 43. Apart from the above Rs.2,00,000/- was also paid to Jindal Polyster Limited by Shri Prem Chawla from his personal account, thus payment of Rs. 14,58,843/- has been made by Shri Prem

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

5 119153786 of Schedule OS) 9(i) Amount applied to charitable purposes in 80330983 India during the previous year – Revenue Account 12 Total 38822803 13 Amount of income exempt under any clause 38822803 of section 10, to the extent that is included in 12 above 14 Amount eligible for exemption under section 0 10(21), 10(22B), 10(23A), 10

THE DCIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. AYUSHMATI EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of Excess of income over expenditure.. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.90,31,280/- eve3n though approval 10(23C)(vi) was not granted to the society by the competent authority and thereby ignoring the decision of the I.T.A.T. Amritsar Bench in the case

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

section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sky Builders & Developers reported in 14 taxmann.78 held that where the assessee sold plots to respective customers by registering sale deed and thereafter constructed the building at an agreed price, it has to be concluded that the assessee merely worked

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