SHRI ABHAY DARE,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Abhay Dare Ito-1(1) R-18, Gtb Complex Bhopal New Market, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adqpd5119C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2024

Section 801B(10) of the Act and further that the appellant had acted as a mere contractor and not as a developer and builder of the housing project as envisaged us 801B(10) of the Act. Therefore the appellant was not eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the profits derived Page 13 of 15 ITANo.832/Ind/2016

THE ACIT, -2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

disallowing the claim for deduction under section\n8018 (10) (a) of the Ast relying upon the Explanation-!! thereof, on the ground of non-\nsubmission of Completion Certificate on or before 31.03.2008 when the petitioner has\nfulfilled all the conditions for entitlement to deduction prescribed in the main provision\nof Section 801B

M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance. The grounds raised for A.Y.2007-08 are reproduced as under: “1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of claim of Rs. 64,27,070/- made by the appellant under section 801B

M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance. The grounds raised for A.Y.2007-08 are reproduced as under: “1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of claim of Rs. 64,27,070/- made by the appellant under section 801B

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

801B(10). It could have been done only by measuring all the houses for determining built- up area of each and every house. The measurement given in the approved plan shows that built up is below 1500. R 5.2 So far as the explanation introduced in section 80IB for excluding the benefit to the undertaking which executed the house project

M/S BALAJEE STERLING BUILDER,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both of the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 801B(10) and hence the deduction claimed should not have been disallowed. It is respectfully submitted that the ground

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

Section 2(x) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

Section 2(x) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

Section 2(x) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

Section 2(x) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

Section 2(x) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines 'package as 'abox, bottle, casket, tin-barrel, case, receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed Section 2(zh) of Food safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines "package" as 'a pre-packed box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case, pouch

THE ITO, - 2, ITARSI vs. M/S. MANISH KUMAR RAKESH KUMAR, HOSHAGABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2005-06

disallowing the appellant’s claim of deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act which was in turn deleted Manish Kumar Rakesh Kumar by the Learned CIT(A). Hence the instant appeal before us. In fact by and under an order dated 22.09.2015 the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the Learned

PURNIMA SINGH,RATLAM vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC - BENGALURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

801B of the Act shall be admissible\nonly if Form 10CCB is filed within the specified due date. The appellant has\nfailed to file the form 10CCB within the specified date and therefore is not\neligible for deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act.\n8. The appellant has merely submitted that the delay was due to technical\nglitches

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Custom (Import) Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (TS-336-SC-2018- CUST) and Ram Nath & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Civil Appeal

M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Custom (Import) Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (TS-336-SC-2018- CUST) and Ram Nath & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Civil Appeal

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Custom (Import) Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (TS-336-SC-2018- CUST) and Ram Nath & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Civil Appeal

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Custom (Import) Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (TS-336-SC-2018- CUST) and Ram Nath & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Civil Appeal

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL vs. M/S. D.K. CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Custom (Import) Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (TS-336-SC-2018- CUST) and Ram Nath & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Civil Appeal