THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

13 – Court in the matter of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the income derived from the property which is not exploited as business asset has been held to be the ‘income from property’ and not ‘income from business’. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Karnani Properties

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

13 – Court in the matter of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the income derived from the property which is not exploited as business asset has been held to be the ‘income from property’ and not ‘income from business’. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Karnani Properties

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

13 – Court in the matter of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the income derived from the property which is not exploited as business asset has been held to be the ‘income from property’ and not ‘income from business’. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Karnani Properties

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

13 – Court in the matter of Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), wherein the income derived from the property which is not exploited as business asset has been held to be the ‘income from property’ and not ‘income from business’. He further relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Karnani Properties

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

13. Ground no. 3 for assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Ground no.2 for assessment year 2007-08 and ground no. 3 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 29 of 66 for assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to not allowing deduction of interest out of notional income from house

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

13. Ground no. 3 for assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Ground no.2 for assessment year 2007-08 and ground no. 3 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 29 of 66 for assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to not allowing deduction of interest out of notional income from house

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

13. Ground no. 3 for assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Ground no.2 for assessment year 2007-08 and ground no. 3 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 29 of 66 for assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to not allowing deduction of interest out of notional income from house

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

13. Ground no. 3 for assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Ground no.2 for assessment year 2007-08 and ground no. 3 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 29 of 66 for assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to not allowing deduction of interest out of notional income from house

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

13. Ground no. 3 for assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Ground no.2 for assessment year 2007-08 and ground no. 3 M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 29 of 66 for assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to not allowing deduction of interest out of notional income from house

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

13,93,000/-for construction work. From the above facts, it is apparent that: • The assessee is not undertaking development and construction of housing project. The assessee is neither the owner nor the seller of the land on which project is claimed to have been undertaken. • The assessee is merely acting as a contractor to the customers to whom land

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

Appeal is allowed

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

Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition put forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However

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

Appeal is allowed

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

Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition put forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However

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

Appeal is allowed

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

Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition put forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However

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

Appeal is allowed

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

Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition put forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However

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

Appeal is allowed

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

Properties Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 84/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 (ITAT-Pune): It was held: “We agree to proposition put forward by Ld. Departmental Representative that plain reading of section 80IB(10) of the Act suggests about only completion of construction and no adjective should be used along with the word completion. This strict interpretation should be given in normal circumstances. However

FAIZAN E BURHANE MILLAT TRUST,JABALPUR vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanifaizan E Burhane Millat Cit(Exemption) Trust Bhopal 181/1, Baitla Colony Vfj Society, Ward Shaheed, Abdul Vs. Hameed, Raza Chowk Milk, Scheme Road, Jabalpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatf8671J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Nd Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. -Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2024

section 13(1)(b) would be attracted in the case of the assessee. Further, CIT(E) has observed that the objects of the assessee confined to benefit to only Muslim community and therefore, it would be covered by restriction u/s 13(1)(b) of the Act even though it functions for public benefit. At the outset we noted that

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

13(8) of the Act. The findings of the CIT(A) /A.O. be quashed and it be held that the said provisions are not applicable. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in his findings that the operating receipts and the other receipts aggregating

M.P.MADHYAM,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

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

13(8) of the Act. The findings of the CIT(A) /A.O. be quashed and it be held that the said provisions are not applicable. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in his findings that the operating receipts and the other receipts aggregating