THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

250 (Guj.) and relied upon by the Ld. AO, Hon'ble’ High Court did not laid any law in respect of merits of the deduction u/s 80IA(4). Further, it is submitted that subsequent to the order of the AO and CIT(A), Rajkot Bench of Tribunal has allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) in the case of Katira Construction

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

250 Infrastcucture 4. We would first take up 9 appeals bearing ITA Nos. 1341/Ind/2016, 1343/Ind/2016, 1342/Ind/2016, 516/Ind/2017, 515/Ind/2016, 513/Ind/2017, 1344/Ind/2016, 514/Ind/2017 and 512/Ind/2017 relating to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On going through the grounds of appeal filed by different assessees we find that they are common and the assessee has challenged the legality of the notices

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

250 Infrastcucture 4. We would first take up 9 appeals bearing ITA Nos. 1341/Ind/2016, 1343/Ind/2016, 1342/Ind/2016, 516/Ind/2017, 515/Ind/2016, 513/Ind/2017, 1344/Ind/2016, 514/Ind/2017 and 512/Ind/2017 relating to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On going through the grounds of appeal filed by different assessees we find that they are common and the assessee has challenged the legality of the notices

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

250 Infrastcucture 4. We would first take up 9 appeals bearing ITA Nos. 1341/Ind/2016, 1343/Ind/2016, 1342/Ind/2016, 516/Ind/2017, 515/Ind/2016, 513/Ind/2017, 1344/Ind/2016, 514/Ind/2017 and 512/Ind/2017 relating to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On going through the grounds of appeal filed by different assessees we find that they are common and the assessee has challenged the legality of the notices

RITIKA JAIN,THANE vs. ITO(IT TP), BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAVAN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

reassessment order. Therefore, for filing the appeal before CIT(A) the question of payment of advance tax by the assessee as per clause(b) of Sub Section 4 of Section 249 does not arise. Similarly the Raipur Bench of the Tribunal in case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi Vs. ITO in ITA No.73/RPR/2024 order dated 10.04.2024 has also considered the identical issue

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed’’. In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under:- Amit

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

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 85,87,725/- made by the A.O.” ITA No. 312/Ind/2018 – AY 2012-13: “(1) That on the facts and in the circumstances