THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

23,437 11,57,813 The depreciation Leasing cannot be allowed on the entire constructed building but it has to be restricted to the occupancy level. Accordingly, based upon occupancy level of 35% depreciation has been restricted. 3 Other 61,68,189 61,51,850 16,339 No reason assigned Assets (Furniture & Fixtures Plant & Machineries and Computers) Total

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

23,437 11,57,813 The depreciation Leasing cannot be allowed on the entire constructed building but it has to be restricted to the occupancy level. Accordingly, based upon occupancy level of 35% depreciation has been restricted. 3 Other 61,68,189 61,51,850 16,339 No reason assigned Assets (Furniture & Fixtures Plant & Machineries and Computers) Total

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

10% - 1,20,20,000 = Total depreciation= Rs. 6,01,00,000 19. Thus, the assessee had also claimed additional depreciation of Rs. 1, 20, 20, 000/- under section 32 (1) (iia) on Wind Electric Generations. According to the AO, the wind Electric generators were used for generation of power and these were not new machinery or plant for manufacturing

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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) imports and exports done by assessee. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the disallowance made by lower-authorities, consequently we delete the same. Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed 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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) imports and exports done by assessee. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the disallowance made by lower-authorities, consequently we delete the same. Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed 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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) imports and exports done by assessee. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the disallowance made by lower-authorities, consequently we delete the same. Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed 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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) imports and exports done by assessee. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the disallowance made by lower-authorities, consequently we delete the same. Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed 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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) imports and exports done by assessee. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the disallowance made by lower-authorities, consequently we delete the same. Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed 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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) imports and exports done by assessee. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the disallowance made by lower-authorities, consequently we delete the same. Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed 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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) imports and exports done by assessee. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the disallowance made by lower-authorities, consequently we delete the same. Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed 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

23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) imports and exports done by assessee. Therefore, we do not find any justification in the disallowance made by lower-authorities, consequently we delete the same. Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 10. This ground relates to the deduction of depreciation on plant and machinery. The assessee claimed depreciation

M/S. MADHYA PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed and consequently the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13 Madhya Pradesh Cricket Dcit, 1(1), Association Indore बनाम/ Holkar Stadium, Vs. 7, Race Course Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatg3527C Appellant By Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Arpit Gaur (Ar) Revenue By Shri Lal Chand (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2017

section 2(15) of the Act. 32. In the light of above organizational structure developed in India for development and promotion of game of cricket, we may point out that during the period under consideration pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 the assessee hosted two IPL 52 M.P. Cricket Association matches on behalf of the BCCI and claimed to have received

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

10 of 17 M/s. Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan ITA No. 509/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 made by AO in assessment-order. This clearly reflects that there is nothing mala fide on the part of assessee. (iii) That, the CIT(A) has passed a proper order and his order must be upheld. 8. We have considered rival contentions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

10 of 17 M/s. Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan ITA No. 509/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 made by AO in assessment-order. This clearly reflects that there is nothing mala fide on the part of assessee. (iii) That, the CIT(A) has passed a proper order and his order must be upheld. 8. We have considered rival contentions

THE ACIT, - 4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Pan : Aaacy1868M

depreciation in the value of foreign currency held by it, on conversion into another currency, such profit or loss would ordinarily be a trading profit or loss if the foreign currency is held by the assessee on revenue account or as a trading asset or as a part of circulating capital embarked in the business. But, if on the other

M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

Section allow exemption of income, and deals with charitable trusts, hence, provision has the similarity. Further, the Hon'ble High Court in above case has held that the expenditure of the earlier year can be set off against the income of subsequent year. Therefore, respectfully following decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujrati Samaj

THE ITO, (EXEMPTION), INDORE vs. M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

Section allow exemption of income, and deals with charitable trusts, hence, provision has the similarity. Further, the Hon'ble High Court in above case has held that the expenditure of the earlier year can be set off against the income of subsequent year. Therefore, respectfully following decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujrati Samaj

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA