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

Section 271AAA of the Act. 7. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee submitted as follows: The appellant is an individual, presently aged nearly 51 years. The appellant is regularly assessed to Income-Tax for the last many years. A search U/S. 132(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Assistant Director of Income

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(2)(d) Page 7 of 34 Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Mydt. and 80P(4), the Hon’ble Courts have concluded that the interest earned by a “co- operative society” from “co-operative bank” is very much eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d). 8. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue at first relied upon the decision

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

disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction

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

disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction

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

disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction

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

disallowed the benefit of section 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assesse on commercial basis. Similar for A.Y.2016-17 & 2017-18 the AO while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) has denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and assessed the income of the assessee by taking gross receipt and allowing the revenue expenditure as deduction

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

7} of the Act, which has not been done by the appellant and therefore the AO has made the disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In my considered opinion, once the conditions of section 194C(6) of the Act are fulfilled, the appellant was not required to deducted TDS in respect of such payments

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

7} of the Act, which has not been done by the appellant and therefore the AO has made the disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In my considered opinion, once the conditions of section 194C(6) of the Act are fulfilled, the appellant was not required to deducted TDS in respect of such payments

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

7} of the Act, which has not been done by the appellant and therefore the AO has made the disallowance by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In my considered opinion, once the conditions of section 194C(6) of the Act are fulfilled, the appellant was not required to deducted TDS in respect of such payments

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

disallowing assessee’s claim of additional depreciation is that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction of road and not into the business of manufacture or production, therefore does not fulfill the primary eligibility- condition prescribed in section 32(1)(iia). 7. Then, Ld. AR straightaway pointed out that the present controversy is not a new controversy

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of the exemption by the authorities below cannot be sustained and deserves to be deleted. 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities and submitted that first proviso to Section 2

M/S MADHYA PRADESH MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

disallowance of the exemption by the authorities below cannot be sustained and deserves to be deleted. 7. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities and submitted that first proviso to Section 2

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT ( CPC ), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

2). 12. Regular assessment for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1992-93 under section 143(3) has been completed disallowing appropriates contingency reserve as a business expenditure and appeals therefrom are pending. A further question therefore arises whether assessment or the provisional assessment or to be more precise, the assessment made on the basis of the return itself under

M/S M.P. MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT ( CPC ), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

2). 12. Regular assessment for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1992-93 under section 143(3) has been completed disallowing appropriates contingency reserve as a business expenditure and appeals therefrom are pending. A further question therefore arises whether assessment or the provisional assessment or to be more precise, the assessment made on the basis of the return itself under

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

2) to section 263 of the Act and submitted that no order shall be made under sub-section (1) of section 263 after expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. 3. In support of his contention has relied the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

disallowance of Rs.88,66,003/- under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The appellant's society is engaged in dairy business and nowhere related to provide credit facilities. The appellant's society claimed deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) in respect of income derived from investment in Bhopal Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. which read as under: Deduction in respect

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

disallowance of Rs.88,66,003/- under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The appellant's society is engaged in dairy business and nowhere related to provide credit facilities. The appellant's society claimed deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) in respect of income derived from investment in Bhopal Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. which read as under: Deduction in respect

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

7 as under: “5. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The AO has 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