M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation at Rs.23,83,676/- and disallowance u/s 36(1)(vii)(a) for the claim of provision made for bad and doubtful debts at Rs.36,19,25,521/-. 3. Subsequently, penalty

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

depreciation at Rs.23,83,676/- and disallowance u/s 36(1)(vii)(a) for the claim of provision made for bad and doubtful debts at Rs.36,19,25,521/-. 3. Subsequently, penalty

M/S KETI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

penalty was levied for the withdrawal of excess claim of depreciation during assessment proceeding post to search on 05.05.2011 carried

M/S KETI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

penalty was levied for the withdrawal of excess claim of depreciation during assessment proceeding post to search on 05.05.2011 carried

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

depreciation. 6. Subsequently Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee’s submissions were noted in the penalty

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

depreciation. 6. Subsequently Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee’s submissions were noted in the penalty

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

penalty of Rs. One Crore u/s 271(1)(c) on the facts, whereby in Quantum proceedings disallowance of Depreciation u/s 32 of the Income

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

depreciation by filing revised return of income. However, for A.Y. M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 2013-14 no addition was made for alleged amount of Rs.1,83,32,038/- but penalty

NIRVINDHYA SHIKSHA AVAM SANSKRITI PRACHAR SAMITI,RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Nirvindhya Shiksha Avam Income-Tax Officer, Sanskriti Prachar Samiti, Rajgarh Biaora, C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37, Trade Centre, Vs. 18,South Tukoganj, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaan8371J Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2024

depreciation claim of Rs. 52,49,523/-. The AO, however, determined total income at Rs. Nil due to re-working of Page 2 of 7 Nirvindhya Shiksha Avam Sanskriti Prachar Samiti, Rajgarh ITA No. 100/Ind/2024 - AY 2017-18 exemption u/s 11/12. Subsequently, the AO passed penalty

BADAUD SHRI VARDHMAN SHIKSHA ,BADAUD vs. THE ITO NFAC DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 Badaud Shri Vardhaman Ito, बनाम/ Shiksha Samiti, Nfac, Badaud Delhi Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacab5370 Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Depreciation on Building - Rs. 4,93,672/- Assessed Income - Rs. Nil 4. Simultaneously, the AO initiated penalty-proceeding u/s 270A

SAIPHIA TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) , NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2015-16 Saiphia Technology Private Nfac Limited, Delhi 1St Floor Ankit Plaza, बनाम/ Kolar Road, Vs. Near Nayapura Bus Stop, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aancs1814Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2025

depreciation claim, (ii) disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of income-tax, and (iii) disallowance of Rs. 2,28,966/- out of various expenses. Accordingly, the AO determined total income at (-) Rs. 22,57,425/-. The AO also initiated penalty

PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,MHOW vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

depreciation during assessment proceedings and addition of Rs. 2,32,050/- was made to the total income of the AY 2014-15, penalty

TURNING POINT ESTATES P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniturning Point Estates Pvt. Ltd. Acit 5(1) 6Th Floor, Treasure Island, 11 Indore Vs Tukoganj Main Road . Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aacct 7457 R Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is hereby being initiated separately for assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. 6. Ld. AO has disallowed the claim of expenses under the head Employees benefit expenses, depreciation

DHANRAJ DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT (1), INDORE

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

depreciation; and (iv) disallowance of Rs. 20,000/- out of office, conveyance and travelling expenses. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal wherein the CIT(A) granted part relief by deleting the addition of last item of Rs. 20,000/-. Subsequently, vide penalty

THE ACIT (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation on newly installed plant and machinery. The Ld. AO selected case under scrutiny, issued statutory notices and finally completed assessment u/s 143(3) on 26.12.2018. Simultaneously on 26.12.2018, the Ld. AO issued notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for imposition of penalty

KIRAN KUMAR IKHE,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(2), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty expenses. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the disallowance being wrong requires to be deleted. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance for an amount Page 3 of 6 ITANo.395 & 396/Ind/2023 Ashish Kothari of Rs. 44,580/- claimed by the appellant

SHRI ASHISH KOTHARI,DEWAS vs. THE DCIT-1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty expenses. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the disallowance being wrong requires to be deleted. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance for an amount Page 3 of 6 ITANo.395 & 396/Ind/2023 Ashish Kothari of Rs. 44,580/- claimed by the appellant

ASHISH KOTHARI,DEWAS vs. THE DCIT-1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty expenses. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the disallowance being wrong requires to be deleted. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance for an amount Page 3 of 6 ITANo.395 & 396/Ind/2023 Ashish Kothari of Rs. 44,580/- claimed by the appellant