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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 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) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 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) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 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) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 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) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 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) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

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

10. He argued that the bank has given loan for purchase of asset and therefore subsequent waiver of loan is a Page 16 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) situation where the bank has “indirectly” met the cost of asset, if not directly. Therefore, according

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

depreciation or good will is concerned. Nothing prevented the Ld. Pr.CIT to conduct enquires as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects [343 ITR 329], the relevant findings read as under: -\n\"Section 263 has been enacted to empower the CIT to exercise power of revision and revise any order passed

SHRI NARSHING BINDAL,DEWAS vs. ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Narsingh Bindal, Acit-1(1) 154, M.G. Road, Kannod, Ujjain बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajhpb 1234 B Assessee By Shri R.S. Dave, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2023

section u/s 145(3) of the Act and rejected books of accounts. Thereafter, the Ld. AO estimated the business income of assessee at Rs. 55,74,215/- and after deducting the net profit of Rs. 24,63,665/- from business declared by assessee in return, determined additional business income of Rs. 31,10,550/- and made addition. When the issue

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

31,83,580/- after making three disallowances, namely (i) disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 14,10,480/-, (ii) disallowance of depreciation u/s 32(1) of Rs. 2,10,80,516/- and (iii) disallowance of interest u/s 37(1) of Rs. 90,33,182/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) qua these disallowances

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

31 March 2014 • Details of directors and shareholders Non-payment of creditors due to liquidity position not a ground for / disregarding issuance of shares at a premium 1.8. The Appellant submits that liquidity position and sound financial statement are two different concepts and a Company may have a sound financial position even though its liquidity position made not be good

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

section 43 (1) of the act, considering subsidy as the cost of an asset met by the government and thus reduced from the total cost of the asset by the amount of subsidy for the purpose of claiming the depreciation by producing the chart where the above sum of subsidy was reduced from the actual cost of the asset eligible

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

31,112/-. Basically, the\nAO's understanding is that the activity of assessee is covered u/s 11(4)/(4A)\nbeing in the nature of 'business' incidental and therefore CBDT Circular No.\n5-P (LXX-6) of 1968 dated 19.06.1968 applies. Accordingly, placing\nreliance on section 11(4)/(4A) and CBDT Circular, the AO viewed that the\nquantum of 'standard exemption

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

31. On a careful examination of assessment-order, we find that the AO has also, in Para No. 5.6 to 5.8 of assessment-order, invoked the aforesaid Explanation 1 to section 32(1) and disallowed deduction but allowed depreciation. In the Written-Submission filed initially by Ld. AR, on Page No. 44, it was stated that the assessee incurred “towards

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

31,24,58,762/ 23,24,58,762/- - (excluding Rs. 8Cr.) Depreciation 1,15,11,494/- 2,11,23,096/- 4,40,85,592/- 4,40,85,592/- C ) Profit before 1,09,55,23 (1,35,30,926/- 3,64,88,3341- (5,52,61,171/- 8/- remuneration ) ) intere and to st the partners Profit after 2,10

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

depreciation at Rs.1,53,066/- to be carry forward for set up in subsequent years. 3. After passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. Pr. CIT examined the assessment records and documents filed by the assessee and notice that the M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. assessment order is prima facie, erroneous and prejudicial