D.K CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (3), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

801B(10)(a) must suffer the consequence of disallowance or withdrawal of the benefit claimed by him on that count. 28. Accordingly, these appeals succeed. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside; and in the facts of the Page 6 of 14 ITANo.23/Ind/2022 D.K. Construction present case, the decision of the Assessing Officer to disallow deduction under Section

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. 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

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

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

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

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

801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Among other aspects in this regard, the assessee was not selling any constructed property to its customers, since only the registry/transfer of the plot by it was made in the name of the purchaser whereas separate agreement for construction of the bungalow/house was made against payment of installments for construction from

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

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

801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Among other aspects in this regard, the assessee was not selling any constructed property to its customers, since only the registry/transfer of the plot by it was made in the name of the purchaser whereas separate agreement for construction of the bungalow/house was made against payment of installments for construction from

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

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

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

SHRI JANKILAL,UJJAIN vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jankilal Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ 12, Chimanganj Mandi Indore Agar Road, Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aczpj 2632 A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

section 201 of the Act has been submitted by the assessee till the completion of assessment. Therefore payment made to Sagar Security Service amounting to Rs. 1.14.433/- was required to be disallowed. 4.2. On perusal of return of income it is seen that The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs 11,87,697/ u/s 80IB of the Act. The assessee