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

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

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

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

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

depreciation, in such manner as may be prescribed. (k) “Income-tax Act” means the Income-tax Act, 1961; (l) “last date” means such date as may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette; (m) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act; (n) “specified date” means the 31st day of January, 2020; (o) “tax arrear” means

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

depreciation and the same Page 4 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified

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

depreciation and the same Page 4 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified

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

depreciation and the same Page 4 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified

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

depreciation and the same Page 4 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified

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

depreciation and the same Page 4 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified

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

depreciation and the same Page 4 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) cannot be worked out on the basis of figures available in various schedules and audit report filed electronically? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified