M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

additional depreciation on wind electric generator as could be seen from the reasons recorded that the assessee has neither furnished depreciation chart as M/s. Sanwaria Agroil Ltd. / I.T.A. No. 620/Ind/2013 /A.Y.:07-08 Page 11 of 34 per Income

THE ACIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI YOGESH KUMAR HOTWANI, MANDSAUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

income towards peak investment, profit element and other misc. discrepancies, whereas the AO has considered higher of the two figures viz. higher of total receipts and total payments in each assessment year to make the addition as either unexplained receipts or unexplained payments as tabled in para 12.3 of assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) observed that

SHRI YOGESH HOTWANI,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

income towards peak investment, profit element and other misc. discrepancies, whereas the AO has considered higher of the two figures viz. higher of total receipts and total payments in each assessment year to make the addition as either unexplained receipts or unexplained payments as tabled in para 12.3 of assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) observed that

M/S. MADHURI REFINERS (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Madhuri Refiners Dcit, 3(1) Private Ltd., Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcm 1884 C Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in upholding the disallowance of additional depreciation

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

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Acit Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) Pan: Aaccd 6124 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 88,76,01,662/- on account of claim of addition depreciation

ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN vs. A ONE ENCLAVE, UJJAIN

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

income. 5. Now the Revenue is in appeal raising following grounds of appeal; 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in allowing claim of deduction of Rs. 91,75,248/- on account of depreciation, interest, remuneration to the partners, expenses and carry forward depreciation out of the additional

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

income tax and additional depreciation. 04.That the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I without appreciating the submission of the assessee

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&

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation

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&

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation

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&

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation

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&

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation

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&

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation

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&

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation

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&

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation

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&

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Depreciation and Finance Charges which are independently verifiable and therefore the assessing officer was not right in estimating the income of the assessee at Rs 2,04,60,184/- as against loss of Rs 67,64,838/- as claimed by the respondent assessee in its return of total income. 1.12.1] That in remand report, the assessing officer simply

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Depreciation and Finance Charges which are independently verifiable and therefore the assessing officer was not right in estimating the income of the assessee at Rs 2,04,60,184/- as against loss of Rs 67,64,838/- as claimed by the respondent assessee in its return of total income. 1.12.1] That in remand report, the assessing officer simply

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Depreciation and Finance Charges which are independently verifiable and therefore the assessing officer was not right in estimating the income of the assessee at Rs 2,04,60,184/- as against loss of Rs 67,64,838/- as claimed by the respondent assessee in its return of total income. 1.12.1] That in remand report, the assessing officer simply