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

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 in such cases, had come into statute by way of introduction of sub-section (6) in section 11 w.e.f

DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. VANASHPATI SMRITI SHIKSHA SAMITI, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) & C.O. No.33/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (Exemption) Vanashpati Smriti Bhopal Shiksha Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Vs. P.A. No. Aadts0547H Appellant By Shri P.K. Mitra Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Pavan Ved, Ar Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

depreciation on assets even when the assessee had already claimed the cost of those assets as “application of income”. It is also noteworthy that in the said judgement, the Hon’ble Apex Court also took note of the amendment made Vanshpati Smriti Shiksha Samiti ITA No.24/Ind/2021 & CO No. 33/Ind/2021 – AY 2016-17 by Parliament in section 11(6

DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL vs. VANASHPATI SMRITI SHIKSHA SAMITI, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) & C.O. No.34/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit (Exemption) Vanashpati Smriti Bhopal Shiksha Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Vs. P.A. No. Aadts0547H Appellant By Shri P.K. Mitra Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Pavan Ved, Ar Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

depreciation on assets even when the assessee had already claimed the cost of those assets as “application of income”. It is also noteworthy that in the said judgement, the Hon’ble Apex Court also took note of the amendment made by Parliament in section 11(6

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)

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the appellant- revenue having taken a conscious decision to accept the judgment of the Karnataka High Court cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in the present case. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following judgments:— A. Birla Corporation Ltd. v. CCE 2005 taxmann.com

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)

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the appellant- revenue having taken a conscious decision to accept the judgment of the Karnataka High Court cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in the present case. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following judgments:— A. Birla Corporation Ltd. v. CCE 2005 taxmann.com

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

Appeals are allowed

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

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the appellant-revenue having taken a conscious decision to accept the judgment of the Karnataka High Court cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in the present case. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following judgments:— A. Birla Corporation Ltd. v. CCE 2005 taxmann.com

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

Appeals are allowed

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

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the appellant-revenue having taken a conscious decision to accept the judgment of the Karnataka High Court cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in the present case. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following judgments:— A. Birla Corporation Ltd. v. CCE 2005 taxmann.com

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

Appeals are allowed

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

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the appellant-revenue having taken a conscious decision to accept the judgment of the Karnataka High Court cannot be permitted to take the opposite stand in the present case. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following judgments:— A. Birla Corporation Ltd. v. CCE 2005 taxmann.com

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

6 of 15 Shreepal Humad Page 7 of 15 no inquiry was conducted by the AO while passing assessment order, therefore, the order of the AO is erroneous for lack of inquiry and the Pr. CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act. He has relied upon the impugned order

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

depreciation was claimed against this cost in the return of income filed by the Assessee for the year under consideration. 5.4 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / T * PO pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble DRP, has erred by not taking cognizance of the evidences submitted by the Appellant which

MALWA OXYGEN AND INDUSTRIAL GASES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECTOR C, INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. AO-RATLAM/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, RATLAM/DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

6) from DSIR and\nnotice issued u/s 142(1) on 09/03/2021 the assessee admitted that claim made\nu/s 35(2AB) is not allowable to it and assessee also paid taxes of Rs.\n24,13,290/- on 15/03/2021. As clearly admitted by assessee the total claim of\nassessee of Rs.78,72,495/- (Rs.24,79,955/- claimed in Profit & loss account\nand

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

6 of 25 Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Assessment year 2018-19 (iii) Such new machinery or plant should not be disqualified under the proviso to Section 32(i)(iia) of the Act. 24.3. Further, the pre-requisites for claiming additional depreciation under Sec.32AC of the Act are the following: (i) A new machinery or plant must be acquired and installed during

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

6,23,437 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

6,23,437 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

6,23,437 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

6,23,437 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

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

11 of the Act. An order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 was passed in which the depreciation claimed by the appellant was disallowed by virtue of the provisions of section explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. As per the said provisions where the portion of the cost of the assets acquired by the assessee is met directly