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

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

disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places in M.P. under contracts received from Executive Engineer, PWD, Mandaleshwar, Shajapur, Raisen, and Chhindwara, M.P.R.R.D.A., Maheshwar, and MPRRDA, Sehore. A perusal of relevant bidding documents, letter of acceptance, notice inviting tender, notice to proceed the work etc. shows as follows:- (i) Detailed notice inviting tender

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

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

disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places in M.P. under contracts received from Executive Engineer, PWD, Mandaleshwar, Shajapur, Raisen, and Chhindwara, M.P.R.R.D.A., Maheshwar, and MPRRDA, Sehore. A perusal of relevant bidding documents, letter of acceptance, notice inviting tender, notice to proceed the work etc. shows as follows:- (i) Detailed notice inviting tender

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

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

disallowance u/s 80IA. During the year, the appellant has constructed roads at various places in M.P. under contracts received from Executive Engineer, PWD, Mandaleshwar, Shajapur, Raisen, and Chhindwara, M.P.R.R.D.A., Maheshwar, and MPRRDA, Sehore. A perusal of relevant bidding documents, letter of acceptance, notice inviting tender, notice to proceed the work etc. shows as follows:- (i) Detailed notice inviting tender

THE ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S RAMDEV SUGARS P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit Central-1 M/S. Ramdev Sugars Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 25, Nasia Road, Near Bus Stand, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aabcr 8097 G Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Deepak Mantri, Ar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.03.2023

disallowance. 5. Per contra, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee-company is in fact engaged in the business of “generation of power” which is captively consumed. He submitted that in order to be eligible for deduction, engagement in “generation of power” is sufficient and it is not necessary to undertake all activities such as “generation or generation and distribution

INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. AGROH TOLL HIGHWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Agroh Toll Highways Private बनाम/ Officer-1(1), Limited Vs. Indore Floor No.104, Krishna Harmony, 14/2 New Palasia, Indore, Indore (Pan:Aalca2341L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2026 Date Of 27.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R

disallowed the deduction under section 801A merely on a ground that the audit report was furnished after due date by the appellant. 5.5 Further, the appellant has submitted that furnishing of the auditors' report along with the return be treated as a procedural provision, and the exemption shall not be denied merely on the ground that the audit report

NHDC LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninhdc Limited Dcit, 3(1) F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Shyamla Bhopal Vs. Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 1732G Dcit, 3(1) Nhdc Limited Bhopal F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Vs. Shyamla Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn 1732G

disallowance of Rs. 1,31,495/- made by the AO on account of loss on sale of the assets need to be considered while computing deduction under section 801A of the Income Tax Act. 4

DCIT 3 (1) , BHOPAL vs. M/S NHDC LTD, BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninhdc Limited Dcit, 3(1) F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Shyamla Bhopal Vs. Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 1732G Dcit, 3(1) Nhdc Limited Bhopal F-01, Nhdc Parisar, Vs. Shyamla Hills Bhopal -462013 (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn 1732G

disallowance of Rs. 1,31,495/- made by the AO on account of loss on sale of the assets need to be considered while computing deduction under section 801A of the Income Tax Act. 4

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. ODDIVILLE FOODS AND FROZEN, INDORE

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed\nand the order of the Ld

4 of 16\nOddiville Foods and Frozen\nITA No. 427/Ind/2025 – AY 2018-19\nIn this case, assessee is engaged in the business of building and\noperating a cold storage in which fruits and vegetables were processed\nthrough scientific technology and refrigeration and storing them in\ncontrolled condition in cold storage. Assessee firm has started this\nbusiness

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of losses without considering explanation and documentary evidence submitted by the assessee and he Cross Objection Nos.5 & 6/Ind/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16 proceeded to make addition on the basis of report of Investigation Wing Ahmadabad. From first appellate order, we clearly observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered all facts and circumstances in a totality

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of losses without considering explanation and documentary evidence submitted by the assessee and he Cross Objection Nos.5 & 6/Ind/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16 proceeded to make addition on the basis of report of Investigation Wing Ahmadabad. From first appellate order, we clearly observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered all facts and circumstances in a totality

DCIT 3(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S NHDC LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

4) (such business being here in after referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction of an amount equal to hundred percent of the profits and gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment year

DCIT 3 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S NHDC LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

4) (such business being here in after referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction of an amount equal to hundred percent of the profits and gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment year

MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimadhya Pradesh Road Acit-2(1), बनाम/ Development Corporation Bhopal Vs. Ltd, 45-A, Arera Hiils, Bhopal (Pan:Aagcm5306C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vikas Guru, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submissions by appearing in person or through authorized representative. Despite fixing the case for seventeen hearings, no one had put in appearance nor any justifiable