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

disallowing the claim for deduction under Section 801B (10) (a) of the Act relying upon the Explanation-(ii) thereof, on the ground of non submission of Completion Certificate on or before 31.03.2008 when the Petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions for H entitlement to deduction prescribed in the main provision of Section 80IB (10)(a)? (c

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 (1) (a)?\n(c

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

801B(10) and hence the deduction claimed should not have been disallowed. It is respectfully submitted that the ground of appeal number 1 raised by the appellant firm may kindly be allowed and the addition to the returned income made by the assessing officer on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10), amounting

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

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

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

C) Packaging The expression 'packaging' has been defined in various statutes and dictionaries as under: - 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

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

C) Packaging The expression 'packaging' has been defined in various statutes and dictionaries as under: - 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

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

C) Packaging The expression 'packaging' has been defined in various statutes and dictionaries as under: - 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

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

C) Packaging The expression 'packaging' has been defined in various statutes and dictionaries as under: - 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

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

C) Packaging The expression 'packaging' has been defined in various statutes and dictionaries as under: - 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

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

801B of the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to file return accompanied by the audit report, thereby, holding that the same is not mandatory. Therefore, it is clear that before the assessment is completed if such report is filed, no fault could be found against the assessee. That was also the view

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