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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

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 of expenditure of Rs. 3,25,94,416 which pertains to running and maintaining the educational institute. Department is not in appeal against this relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). [PB 116] For the addition made on account of concealment of fees of Rs. 69,70,505, Ld. CIT(A) restricted this addition

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 of expenditure of Rs. 3,25,94,416 which pertains to running and maintaining the educational institute. Department is not in appeal against this relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). [PB 116] For the addition made on account of concealment of fees of Rs. 69,70,505, Ld. CIT(A) restricted this addition

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

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

250 (Gujrat HC), the Ld. AO disallowed deduction, which was also upheld by Ld. CIT(A) in first-appeal. The observations and conclusions made by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2009-10 are extracted below: “Disallowance u/s 80-IA 13. Ground No. 4 is against the disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places

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

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

250 (Gujrat HC), the Ld. AO disallowed deduction, which was also upheld by Ld. CIT(A) in first-appeal. The observations and conclusions made by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2009-10 are extracted below: “Disallowance u/s 80-IA 13. Ground No. 4 is against the disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places

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

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

250 (Gujrat HC), the Ld. AO disallowed deduction, which was also upheld by Ld. CIT(A) in first-appeal. The observations and conclusions made by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2009-10 are extracted below: “Disallowance u/s 80-IA 13. Ground No. 4 is against the disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places

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

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

250 (Gujrat HC), the Ld. AO disallowed deduction, which was also upheld by Ld. CIT(A) in first-appeal. The observations and conclusions made by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2009-10 are extracted below: “Disallowance u/s 80-IA 13. Ground No. 4 is against the disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places

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

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

250 (Gujrat HC), the Ld. AO disallowed deduction, which was also upheld by Ld. CIT(A) in first-appeal. The observations and conclusions made by Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2009-10 are extracted below: “Disallowance u/s 80-IA 13. Ground No. 4 is against the disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

250 (Kar.). 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11.10 The SLP filed by the revenue against the above judgment has been dismissed

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

250 (Kar.). 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11.10 The SLP filed by the revenue against the above judgment has been dismissed

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

250 (Kar.). 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11.10 The SLP filed by the revenue against the above judgment has been dismissed

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066243407(1) dated 29.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore the directions of the Ld. CIT(A) were incomplete? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by disallowing