INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

13 it has been held that: What section 80P(2)(d) of the Act......envisages is that such interest or dividend eamed by the assessee co-operative society should be out of the investments with any other co-operative society. The words "Co-operative Banks" are missing in clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section

MP STATE CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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

disallow the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid Page 13 of 16 ITANo.114 & 115/Ind/2024 M.P. State Co-operative Dairy

MP STATE COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ACIT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal for A

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

disallow the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 31.08.2017 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid Page 13 of 16 ITANo.114 & 115/Ind/2024 M.P. State Co-operative Dairy

SANKALP SAKH SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisankalp Sakh Sahkari Pr. Cit-1 Sanstha Maryadit Indore 1, C/O Smriti Nagrik Sahkari Vs. Bank Dayamandir Road Goshala Market, Mandsaur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeas0312G Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2024

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of the interest income received by the assessee on the fixed deposit made with Bhopal Co-operative Central Bank on the ground that the only interest or dividend received on the investment made with the other Co-operative Society is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2

THE PR CIT-1 , BHOPAL vs. BHOPAL DUGDH SANGH SAHAKARI MY., BYHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanipr. Cit-1 Bhopal Dugdh Sangh Sahakari Bhopal Maryadit Diary Plant, Near Habibganj Vs. Railway Station Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaaab0221D

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 8. In view of but has been discussed above, I am of the consider view that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of deduction claimed by the Assessee Society u/s. 80P (2)(d) of the Act, hence Assessing Officer is directed to allow the same.” 12.On examination of facts

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

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These four appeals by the assessee are directed against four separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC, Delhi all dated 18.10.2022 for A.Ys. 2011- 12, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. The assesse has raised common grounds in these four appeals except the quantum

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

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These four appeals by the assessee are directed against four separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC, Delhi all dated 18.10.2022 for A.Ys. 2011- 12, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. The assesse has raised common grounds in these four appeals except the quantum

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

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These four appeals by the assessee are directed against four separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC, Delhi all dated 18.10.2022 for A.Ys. 2011- 12, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. The assesse has raised common grounds in these four appeals except the quantum

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

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: These four appeals by the assessee are directed against four separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC, Delhi all dated 18.10.2022 for A.Ys. 2011- 12, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively. The assesse has raised common grounds in these four appeals except the quantum

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13

INDORE PRAGATISHIL SAHAKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. NFAC, DELHI, INDORE

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2018-19 Indore Pragatishil Income Tax Department, Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Nfa, बनाम/ Maryadit, Delhi Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaai3124L Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2024

13 of 16 Indore Pragtishil Sahakari Sakh Sanstha Mydt, Indore. Vs. I.T.Department, NFAC, Delhi -ITA No.317/Ind/2023 Assessment year 2018-19 the A.O while framing the assessment had taken a possible view, and therein concluded that the assessee would be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2) (d) on the interest income earned on its investments/deposits with cooperative banks

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.12.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore (in short ‘CIT(A)’), arising out of the order dated 06.03.2013 passed by the JCIT, Range-3, Indore, under section 271AAA of the Income

DCIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI AGRAWAL EDUCATIONAL & WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit(Central)-Ii, Shri Agarwal Education & Bhopal Welfare Society बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacts 0481 M Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.10.2022

disallowed the entire exemption claimed u/s 11 & 12 of the Act due to operation of section 13(1)(d) {correct section 13(2

ACIT CENTRAL -2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI AGARWAL EDUCATION & CULTURAL SOCITEY, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit(Central)-Ii, Shri Agarwal Education & Bhopal Welfare Society बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacts 0481 M Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.10.2022

disallowed the entire exemption claimed u/s 11 & 12 of the Act due to operation of section 13(1)(d) {correct section 13(2

DXC TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

13 to\nthe Balance Sheet under the head other financial liabilities,\nFurther, during the relevant previous year, the finance cost was\nonly Rs.0.33 Cr (Note 21 to the Balance sheet).\n4. That on the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the\nCIT(A)-NFAC has erred in not appreciating that the Assessing officer\nexcept for mechanically applying Rule

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

D) vs. State of A.P. [2011 4 SCC 363(SC)]\n\niii)\nBalwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh [2010 8 SCC 685 (SC)]\n\niv)\nPathapati Subba Reddy vs. Special Deputy Collector [2024 SCC\nOnline SC 513 (SC)]\n\nv)\nBasawaraj & Anr vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [2013 14\nSCC 81 (SC)\n\nvi)\nLala Mata Din vs. A. Narayan

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

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Acit Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) Pan: Aaccd 6124 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

disallowed the above claim made by the appellant stating that the activity of the appellant cannot be termed as manufacture or production as required by the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) and 32AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by relying heavily upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NC Budhraja reported