M/S. DEVI SHAKUNTALA THKARAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Devi Shakuntala Dcit Thakral Charitable (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatd2943B

4. Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings has correctly allowed the claim of assessee u/s 11(2). Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is in accordance to law allowing the claim of assessee u/s 11(2). 5. One of the twin conditions for invoking the provisions of section 263 i.e. prejudicial to the interest of revenue is not satisfied. Thus

M/S SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. THE DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

11(1) specifically list down the maintenance activities as under: 1. Restoration of rain cuts and dressing of berms. 2. Making of shoulders. 3. Maintenance of bituminous surface road including filling pot holes and patch repairs. 4. Maintenance of drains, converse, road signs, guard and parapet rails. 5. Maintenance of kilometer stones including white washing of guard stones and refixing

M/S SHRI BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,NEEMUCH vs. DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

11(1) specifically list down the maintenance activities as under: 1. Restoration of rain cuts and dressing of berms. 2. Making of shoulders. 3. Maintenance of bituminous surface road including filling pot holes and patch repairs. 4. Maintenance of drains, converse, road signs, guard and parapet rails. 5. Maintenance of kilometer stones including white washing of guard stones and refixing

ADIM JATI SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MYDT JOBAT,ALIRAJPUR vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT OFFICER, ALIRAJPUR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti National Faceless बनाम/ Mydt., Assessment Centre Vs. 01, Jobat, Jobat, Delhi Alirajpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaala0577E Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr

section 80P(4) prohibits deduction in such cases. 10. We have considered rival submissions of both sides. Admittedly, there is no dispute on facts that (i) the assessee is a “co-operative society” but not a “co- operative bank” and (ii) the assessee has earned interest from “co-operative banks”. Now, the controversy before us is purely legal i.e. whether

AKSHAY ACADEMY,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniakshay Academy Ito, Nfac 32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadta8987B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee did not claim exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act in the return of income therefore, the claim of the assessee cannot be entertained by the AO in absence of revised return of income for making a fresh claim. Ld. DR has further submitted that even

M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

section 2(15) of the Act and thus, he disallowed the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11(1)(a) & 11(2) of the Act amounting to Rs.4,80,95,629/- and Rs.11,88,81,442/- respectively. 4

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2017-18: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.78

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2017-18: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.78

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2017-18: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.78

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2017-18: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.78

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2017-18: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.78

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2017-18: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.78

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2017-18: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.78

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2017-18: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.78

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

11. Finally, Ld. AR corroborated the impact/implications of various clauses of contracts/agreements entered into by the assessee(as discussed in earlier paragraph) in the light of above decisions and argued that the assessee satisfies all requirements as expounded by Hon’ble Courts for being eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA(4). Hence, the activity of assessee cannot be said

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

11. Finally, Ld. AR corroborated the impact/implications of various clauses of contracts/agreements entered into by the assessee(as discussed in earlier paragraph) in the light of above decisions and argued that the assessee satisfies all requirements as expounded by Hon’ble Courts for being eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA(4). Hence, the activity of assessee cannot be said

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

11. Finally, Ld. AR corroborated the impact/implications of various clauses of contracts/agreements entered into by the assessee(as discussed in earlier paragraph) in the light of above decisions and argued that the assessee satisfies all requirements as expounded by Hon’ble Courts for being eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA(4). Hence, the activity of assessee cannot be said

SHREENATHJI INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD.,PIPARIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ITARSI

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

11. Finally, Ld. AR corroborated the impact/implications of various clauses of contracts/agreements entered into by the assessee(as discussed in earlier paragraph) in the light of above decisions and argued that the assessee satisfies all requirements as expounded by Hon’ble Courts for being eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA(4). Hence, the activity of assessee cannot be said