M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

139(5) in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India the claim cannot be accepted. The CIT(A) Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 has also stated that when the bad debts are actually written off in the books of accounts as irrecoverable

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

139(5) in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India the claim cannot be accepted. The CIT(A) Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 has also stated that when the bad debts are actually written off in the books of accounts as irrecoverable

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)

139 (Del) set aside and matter remanded to the Assessing Officer with directions." After this decision, the Ld. Assessing Officer examined the technical expert of the C-DOT on 29.09.2010 in respect of IUC and which were cross examined on 04.10.2010 by M/s. Bharti Cellular Limited, Delhi. The technical experts re-examined on 04.10.2010 on this issue and admitted that

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)

139 (Del) set aside and matter remanded to the Assessing Officer with directions." After this decision, the Ld. Assessing Officer examined the technical expert of the C-DOT on 29.09.2010 in respect of IUC and which were cross examined on 04.10.2010 by M/s. Bharti Cellular Limited, Delhi. The technical experts re-examined on 04.10.2010 on this issue and admitted that

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

Appeals are allowed

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

139 (Del) set aside and matter remanded to the Assessing Officer with directions." After this decision, the Ld. Assessing Officer examined the technical expert of the C-DOT on 29.09.2010 in respect of IUC and which were cross examined on 04.10.2010 by M/s. Bharti Cellular Limited, Delhi. The technical experts re- examined on 04.10.2010 on this issue and admitted that

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

Appeals are allowed

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

139 (Del) set aside and matter remanded to the Assessing Officer with directions." After this decision, the Ld. Assessing Officer examined the technical expert of the C-DOT on 29.09.2010 in respect of IUC and which were cross examined on 04.10.2010 by M/s. Bharti Cellular Limited, Delhi. The technical experts re- examined on 04.10.2010 on this issue and admitted that

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

Appeals are allowed

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

139 (Del) set aside and matter remanded to the Assessing Officer with directions." After this decision, the Ld. Assessing Officer examined the technical expert of the C-DOT on 29.09.2010 in respect of IUC and which were cross examined on 04.10.2010 by M/s. Bharti Cellular Limited, Delhi. The technical experts re- examined on 04.10.2010 on this issue and admitted that

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

section 43(1) as also the CBDT Circular No. 715, dated 8-8-1995 and the judgement of the Supreme court in the case of CCE v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., wherein the SC held that Reimbursable expenses are not deductible, completely ignoring that the assessee has claimed already reimbursed expenses in shape of depreciation and this claim

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

section 43(1) as also the CBDT Circular No. 715, dated 8-8-1995 and the judgement of the Supreme court in the case of CCE v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., wherein the SC held that Reimbursable expenses are not deductible, completely ignoring that the assessee has claimed already reimbursed expenses in shape of depreciation and this claim

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

139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs. 14,35,62,680/-. In response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee had filed return of income on 30/03/2016 for the AY 2014-15, declaring total income at Rs. 14,45,690/- The appellant had revised the deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

139(1) of the Act on 24.12.2020 declaring total income of Rs.5,93,68,577/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 29.06.2021. The AO issued show cause notice u/s 142(1) requiring the assessee to submit clarification/show cause as to why disallowance of claim of depreciation on goodwill

SHRI SANDEEP MEHTA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEEMUCH

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradिनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष" Shri Sandeep Mehta, The Income Tax Officer, S/O. Shri Jay Singh Mehta, Vs Neemuch Vijay Talkies Chouraha, Neemuch (Mp) Pan : Adbpm 8174 B "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17 /08/2021 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ujjain (Mp) Dated 28.11.2017 Passed For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The First Ground Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Reopening Of Assessment By Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, While Impugning The Orders Of The Revenue Authorities, Contended That The Assessment Was Reopened For The Reason That The Assessee Has Made Cash Deposits Amounting To Rs.11,00,000/-, Without Disclosing The Source Of Deposits & This

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters

M/S KETI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The sole grievance by the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 is against the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act at Rs.7,24,540/- and Rs.30,04,450/- which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) and was imposed

M/S KETI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The sole grievance by the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 is against the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act at Rs.7,24,540/- and Rs.30,04,450/- which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) and was imposed

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL.,JT.,DY.,ASSTT.ITO, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

5,329/- 1,029/- 4,300/- TOTAL 2,63,603/- Total under assessment is to the tune of Rs.43,91,603/-. The case is covered Under Section 147. Notice Under Section 148 is issued." The assesse objected to the said reopening of the assessment. However, an order of re-assessment was passed on 24th September 1990 determining the total income

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:

139(5) during the assessment proceedings. The AO further noted that in respect of excess amortization claimed on enhanced project cost ofRs. 1,83,32,038/-, the appellant withdrew the claim of Rs. 6,44,236/- and Rs. 8,51,408/- for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 respectively. The AO also noted in Para 2.3 that the appellant

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

139 for the relevant assessment year or to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for the assessment for that year. Both the conditions must exist before an ITO can proceed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 147(a) of the Act. Under Section 147(b) the Income-tax Officer also has the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment where

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