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

1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this issue as explained by Ld. AR are such that the assessee took loan from bank for purchase of plant and machinery. Subsequently, the assessee was declared as a sick company by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). In terms

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

1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this issue as explained by Ld. AR are such that the assessee took loan from bank for purchase of plant and machinery. Subsequently, the assessee was declared as a sick company by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). In terms

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

1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this issue as explained by Ld. AR are such that the assessee took loan from bank for purchase of plant and machinery. Subsequently, the assessee was declared as a sick company by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). In terms

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

1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this issue as explained by Ld. AR are such that the assessee took loan from bank for purchase of plant and machinery. Subsequently, the assessee was declared as a sick company by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). In terms

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

1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this issue as explained by Ld. AR are such that the assessee took loan from bank for purchase of plant and machinery. Subsequently, the assessee was declared as a sick company by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). In terms

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

1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this issue as explained by Ld. AR are such that the assessee took loan from bank for purchase of plant and machinery. Subsequently, the assessee was declared as a sick company by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). In terms

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

1,82,66,673/-. Now, the assessee claims that it should have been allowed fully. 11. Facts apropos to this issue as explained by Ld. AR are such that the assessee took loan from bank for purchase of plant and machinery. Subsequently, the assessee was declared as a sick company by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). In terms

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, 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

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

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

11. Additionally, Ld. AR also relied upon an earlier order of ITAT, Bangalore in M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. ACIT(TDS), Bangalore ITA No. 648 to 651/Bang/2014 dated 06.11.2015 authored by Judicial Member forming part of this Bench which also held the same view. The relevant paras of order are re-produced below: “12. Ground No. V regarding non-deduction

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

11. Additionally, Ld. AR also relied upon an earlier order of ITAT, Bangalore in M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. ACIT(TDS), Bangalore ITA No. 648 to 651/Bang/2014 dated 06.11.2015 authored by Judicial Member forming part of this Bench which also held the same view. The relevant paras of order are re-produced below: “12. Ground No. V regarding non-deduction

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

11. Additionally, Ld. AR also relied upon an earlier order of ITAT, Bangalore in M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. ACIT(TDS), Bangalore ITA No. 648 to 651/Bang/2014 dated 06.11.2015 authored by Judicial Member forming part of this Bench which also held the same view. The relevant paras of order are re-produced below: “12. Ground No. V regarding non-deduction

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

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

11. Additionally, Ld. AR also relied upon an earlier order of ITAT, Bangalore in M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. ACIT(TDS), Bangalore ITA No. 648 to 651/Bang/2014 dated 06.11.2015 authored by Judicial Member forming part of this Bench which also held the same view. The relevant paras of order are re-produced below: “12. Ground No. V regarding non-deduction

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

11. Additionally, Ld. AR also relied upon an earlier order of ITAT, Bangalore in M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. ACIT(TDS), Bangalore ITA No. 648 to 651/Bang/2014 dated 06.11.2015 authored by Judicial Member forming part of this Bench which also held the same view. The relevant paras of order are re-produced below: “12. Ground No. V regarding non-deduction

DB POWER LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Db Power Limited, Acit, Central Circle-1, बनाम/ Office Block, 1A, Bhopal Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit, Central Circle-1, M/S Db Power Limited, बनाम/ Bhopal Office Block, 1A, Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

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.” [Emphasis supplied] 5. Ld. AR submitted that the section 147 is ‘subject to the provisions of section 148 to 153’ and sections 148 to 153 prescribe different

THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DB POWER LTD, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Db Power Limited, Acit, Central Circle-1, बनाम/ Office Block, 1A, Bhopal Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit, Central Circle-1, M/S Db Power Limited, बनाम/ Bhopal Office Block, 1A, Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

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.” [Emphasis supplied] 5. Ld. AR submitted that the section 147 is ‘subject to the provisions of section 148 to 153’ and sections 148 to 153 prescribe different

DILIP BUILDCON LTD ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Acit Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) Pan: Aaccd 6124 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

section 2 and in this definition the word ‘object’ was also included. 30. We, thus, set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and allow the assessee claim made for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act and claim of the investment allowance u/s 32AC of the Act. Ground nos. 1& 2 raised by the assessee