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

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

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

8. That, subsequent to the search, I furnished my return of income for the assessment year under consideration, electronically, with digital signature on 28- 09-2008, vide Ack. No. 41983551280908 declaring total income of Rs.40,00,14,770/-. For a ready reference, a copy of the computation of total income ITA No.252/Ind/2017 (Shri Surendra Singh Bhatia vs. JCIT) Asst.Year

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

8) or sub-section (10) of section 80-IA are applicable; or 17. Any other transaction as may be prescribed. 13 M/s. Ruchi J. Oil Pvt. Ltd. And where the aggregate of such transactions entered into by the assessee in the previous year exceeds a sum of five crore rupees.” 4.5 There are two cumulative conditions for attracting the provisions

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

Appeal is allowed

8 D of the Rules.\nXXX (Section 14A)\n26. The 'Memorandum Explaining the Provisions of the Finance Bill, 2001\n[2001] 248 ITR (St.) 162, 195, by which Section 14A was introduced, with\nretrospective effect from 1st April 1962, stated:\nXXX (Memorandum)\n27. In cases involving Section 14 A of the Act, the constant tug-of-war lies in\nthe

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

8. Ld. AR, thereafter, made an alternative claim that the assessee has\nalso received registration u/s 12A(1)(aa) read with section 12AA from AY\n2019-20 onwards vide Order No. ITBA/EXM/S/12AA/2019-20/\n1016373495(1) dated 17.06.2019 issued by CIT(Exemption), Bhopal. Ld. AR\ninvited our attention to the copy of registration-order. Ld. AR then referred to\nthe section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHRI HUMAD JAIN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. ITO 2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs.\n5,13,800 /- claimed u/s 80P.\"\nShri Humad Jain Sakh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit\nITA No. 547/Ind/2024 – AY 2012-13\nGround No. 1 & 2:\n4. By means of these grounds, the assessee is raising a legal claim that\nthe AO's order is bad in law and illegal and must be annulled.\n5. With respect to these grounds

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

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

M/S VIJAY PULSES,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 4(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) M/S. Vijay Pulses, Dcit, Cpc, 12, Sajan Nagar, Bangalore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafv 9714 E Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023

disallowance in terms of section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va). M/s.Vijay Pulses Page 4 of 8

SARSWATI VIDHYA PRATISHTHAN M.P ,BHUPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

section 2(15) of the Act. In the case of assesse the activity of organizing the shivir which is in the nature of seminar, conference and lectures on the education and therefore, an aid to the main object of the assesse. Neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has disputed that the shivir organized by the assesse

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