RAINA GARG,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Raina Garg, Ito-4(1), Prop. M/S. Garg Trading Bhopal Company, बनाम/ Purana Kabadkhana, Vs. Jumerati, Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aawpg4732F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2024

assessment proceedings, the AO has noticed from the balance sheet of the appellant that it has given interest free loan/advance of Rs. 33,20,334/- to some related parties/concerns. These loans/advances were given to five persons. The appellant has submitted that she is a partner in M/s. Garg Industries holding with 25% share in Profit & Loss of the said firm

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

block of asset of the amalgamating companies and therefore not eligible for depreciation as per the provisions of Sec.32 of the Act. 6.10 At this juncture, it is worthwhile to go through the provisions of Sec.32 of the Act which deals with depreciation. The relevant portion of Sec. 32 of the Act reads as follows. Depreciation

THE DCIT, 5(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. SANWARIA AGRO OILS LTD., BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

depreciation of the eligible business which is already set off from other source before such a claim is putforth. Thus, there is no error committed by the Tribunal in setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority as well as the lower Appellate Authority. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against

M/S. M.P.STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT2(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. M.P. State Acit-2(1), Bhopal Cooperative Marketing बनाम/ Federation Ltd. Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabat 4628 H Assesseeby Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023

depreciation of Rs. 1,18,52,613/-relatable to “Buildings and Godown block” or by even a part of it. Hence, there is no merit in sustaining protective disallowance of Rs. 1,18,52,613/-; the same deserves to be deleted. 6. Ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities and prayed to uphold the disallowance. 7. We have considered

M/S HINDUSTAN EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12 M/S. Hindustan Equipments Acit-5(1), Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Indore C/O S.S. Solanki & Co, 402, Trade House, 16/3 South Tukoganj, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabch0707P

Assessing Officer (In short ‘Ld. A.O’) could not pass the test of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, Ld. A.O also examined the claim of depreciation @80% under Block

THE ACIT, 3(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI SEEMA NAGPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pawan Nagpal Acit-3(1) A-4, Housing Board Colony Vs. Bhopal Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3120A Assessment Year 2009-10 Acit-3(1) Smt. Seema Nagpal Bhopal Vs. P/O M/S. Active Motors A-4, Housing Board Colony Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3119R For Assessees Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca For Department Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

depreciation regularly. There was no addition to this block of asset from F Y. 2001-02 to F Y. 2008-09. The block "New Project", building and furniture’s were shown to have been write off by the end of the year under reference on account of closure of the firm and transfer of assets and liabilities

SHRI PAWAN NAGPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pawan Nagpal Acit-3(1) A-4, Housing Board Colony Vs. Bhopal Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3120A Assessment Year 2009-10 Acit-3(1) Smt. Seema Nagpal Bhopal Vs. P/O M/S. Active Motors A-4, Housing Board Colony Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3119R For Assessees Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca For Department Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

depreciation regularly. There was no addition to this block of asset from F Y. 2001-02 to F Y. 2008-09. The block "New Project", building and furniture’s were shown to have been write off by the end of the year under reference on account of closure of the firm and transfer of assets and liabilities

M/S. SHREE VIGNESH WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DY CIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vighnesh Warehouse Dcit, Cpc & Distributors Private Bangaluru बनाम/ Limited Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue)

assessment-year [in short “AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has preferred this appeal on following grounds: “1. Addition made by AO at Rs. 51,40,795/- in respect to profit on sale of depreciable assets even though block

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) further stated that 31 Mohanlal Chugh & others without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) further stated that 31 Mohanlal Chugh & others without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

depreciation as the assessee carried out the activities of development of project as an investor and not as a builder. The Ld. CIT(A) further stated that 31 Mohanlal Chugh & others without bringing any corroborative evidence on record the profit of the project cannot be estimated @30%. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

assessment of that or earlier years could be re-opened. Such an action was barred by limitation. Further, as per section 43(6)(c)(ii) & (i), the only adjustments permitted in the WDV of the block with reference to the year in which depreciation

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

assessment of that or earlier years could be re-opened. Such an action was barred by limitation. Further, as per section 43(6)(c)(ii) & (i), the only adjustments permitted in the WDV of the block with reference to the year in which depreciation

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

assessment of that or earlier years could be re-opened. Such an action was barred by limitation. Further, as per section 43(6)(c)(ii) & (i), the only adjustments permitted in the WDV of the block with reference to the year in which depreciation

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

assessment of that or earlier years could be re-opened. Such an action was barred by limitation. Further, as per section 43(6)(c)(ii) & (i), the only adjustments permitted in the WDV of the block with reference to the year in which depreciation

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

assessment of that or earlier years could be re-opened. Such an action was barred by limitation. Further, as per section 43(6)(c)(ii) & (i), the only adjustments permitted in the WDV of the block with reference to the year in which depreciation

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

assessment of that or earlier years could be re-opened. Such an action was barred by limitation. Further, as per section 43(6)(c)(ii) & (i), the only adjustments permitted in the WDV of the block with reference to the year in which depreciation

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

assessment of that or earlier years could be re-opened. Such an action was barred by limitation. Further, as per section 43(6)(c)(ii) & (i), the only adjustments permitted in the WDV of the block with reference to the year in which depreciation