BAL BHAVAN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. DCIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Bal Bhavan School, Dcit (Exemption), 1, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaab3678G Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2024

section 13(1)(c)/13(2) and made an addition of entire payment of Rs. 41,72,105/- and also applied maximum marginal rate. 15. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed AO’s observations and upheld AO’s order. 16. Before us, Ld. AR for assessee made following submissions: (i) That when the AO raised a query in notice

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:

13 9(2)/148 of the Income tax act, 1961, No. dated or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. *have 'without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4 )/23 (2) of the Indian Income

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

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

13 of 17 M/s. Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan ITA No. 509/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 consultant. We also do not find any substance in the submissions made by Dr. Pal; on the contrary, in our considered opinion, we find that section 271(1)(c) of the Act has specifically stated about the concealment of the particulars of income

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

13 of 17 M/s. Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan ITA No. 509/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 consultant. We also do not find any substance in the submissions made by Dr. Pal; on the contrary, in our considered opinion, we find that section 271(1)(c) of the Act has specifically stated about the concealment of the particulars of income

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

1)(c) also came to an end. Being so, the fear of the assessee that the Ld. AO is not going to allow the expenditure on acquisition of fixed assets as application of income, is automatically dispelled. To conclude the Ground No. 5 comes to an end due to dismissal of Ground No. 3 and 4. Accordingly the Ground

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Further, it is not open to the AO to try to evade from the binding effect of a Supreme Court decision by trying to find out 'distinguishing features'. Accordingly, 1 hereby direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.7,30,26,302/- made by disallowing the depreciation u/s.32 of the Act. Hence

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

Appeals are allowed

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

C&M), BSNL, Ex-Member Telecom Commission on 24.12.2010 and admitted that whole interconnected uses process, no manual intervention is required. He further drawn our attention on page No.651 to 652 for post-paid as well as prepaid Page 11 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. roaming

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

Appeals are allowed

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

C&M), BSNL, Ex-Member Telecom Commission on 24.12.2010 and admitted that whole interconnected uses process, no manual intervention is required. He further drawn our attention on page No.651 to 652 for post-paid as well as prepaid Page 11 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. roaming

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

Appeals are allowed

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

C&M), BSNL, Ex-Member Telecom Commission on 24.12.2010 and admitted that whole interconnected uses process, no manual intervention is required. He further drawn our attention on page No.651 to 652 for post-paid as well as prepaid Page 11 of 55 [[[ ITA No. 109 to 111/Ind/2023 – AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2013-14 M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., Indore. roaming

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

13 of LPS-25, certain transaction were made relating to Smt. Shivani Tawani. The appellant was show-caused on this issue. The appellant accepted the incorrect depreciation during assessment proceedings and addition of Rs. 2,32,050/- was made to the total income of the AY 2014-15, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act was initiated on this issue