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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

block\nof asset of the amalgamating companies and held that the impugned transaction for claiming the deduction on account of the depreciation is an arrangement for claiming the higher depreciation which is unwanted under the provisions of the Act.\n6.3 Appellant's Submissions\n6.3.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant had filed elaborative written submissions rebutting the contentions

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

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other\nallowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned\n(hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the\nrelevant assessment year).\"\nIt is submitted that \"Reasons to Believe\" that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment is one of the conditions precedent for reopening of assessment

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. 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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Block-1B, DLF IT Park, Indore. Shivaji Garden, Moonlight Stop, Nandanbakkam Post-Ramapuram, Chennai, Tamilnadu – 600 089. [PAN – AABCC 5820 A] S.A. No.46/Ind/2021 (Arising out of ITA No.179/Ind/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. Computer Sciences Corporation vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of India Private Limited, Income Tax – 2(1), 19A, Electronic Complex, Indore. Aatmaram Choudhary Marg, Near Readymade Complex, Pardeshipura

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Block-1B, DLF IT Park, Indore. Shivaji Garden, Moonlight Stop, Nandanbakkam Post-Ramapuram, Chennai, Tamilnadu – 600 089. [PAN – AABCC 5820 A] S.A. No.46/Ind/2021 (Arising out of ITA No.179/Ind/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. Computer Sciences Corporation vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of India Private Limited, Income Tax – 2(1), 19A, Electronic Complex, Indore. Aatmaram Choudhary Marg, Near Readymade Complex, Pardeshipura