NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

gaining education in the field of law. The Institute being in such an isolated\nlocation, it is necessary for it to run a mess.\nIn this case, NLIU was maintaining a mess, the receipts of which were being\nmaintained in a separate account & separate books of accounts too were being\nmaintained for it. The amount of receipt of mess

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

deemed to be the income of the assessee under s.41(1) either. Thereupon the revenue asked for and obtained the reference of the following question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs.14,665 received by the assessee from the Government of Andhra

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

gaining an immediate understanding: “16. The last ground raised by the assessee challenges disallowance of capitalization of software expenses of Rs. 78,67,240/-. The assessee had debited software expenses of Rs. 9,86,00,000/- which included cost of purchase of licensed software amounting to Rs. 78,67,240/-. The AO found the purchase of software

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

gainfully refer the decision of ITAT, Jaipur ‘B’ Bench in The ITO, Ward-4(2), Jaipur Vs. M/s Skyways Industrial Estate Company (P) Ltd., ITA No. 691/JP/2017, dated 21.02.2020 (order is authored by Judicial Member forming part of this Bench) in one identical case where the AO made an addition of Rs. 3,98,00,000/- in the very same

THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD., INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2011-12

deemed to be not satisfactory, unless— (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

capital work-fin-progress) and no depreciation was claimed against this cost in the return of income filed by the Assessee for the year under consideration. 5.4 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / T * PO pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble DRP, has erred by not taking cognizance