RAJ KUMAR PALIA,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - ITARSI, CAMP AT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2009-10 Raj Kumar Paliya Dcit/Acit M/S. Da Construction

section 40(a)(ia). The relevant paras of CIT(A)’s order are re-produced below: Paras relevant to the issue of Depreciation: “5.1 Depreciation on truck: - 5.1.1 The timeline of the issue is as under: - a. The appellant in his Return of Income claimed 15

M/S SANGHI BROTHERS,,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5 (1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09

Section 32, it is required that the machinery is to be put to use for the purpose of business. As far as the vehicles in question are concerned, they were already put to use for the purpose of the business; hence deserve for the claim of depreciation. But the question before us is that Whether the assets in question

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

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. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-1, C-41-50, Sez, Sector-3, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

15,05,185/- Total 389,83,611/- 38,98,361/- Since, assessee has purchased old and used plant & machinery and claimed additional depreciation for the same was not allowable in view of provision of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, MEGHNAGAR DIST. JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

15 vehicles in the month of August, 2011 and for 21 vehicles in the month of February, 2012 and paid the taxes accordingly. The appellant has paid road tax amounting to Rs.460/- for each vehicle. Mere non-registration of vehicles under Motor Vehicles Act will not disentitle the appellant for claiming depreciation. The purpose of registration under Motor Vehicles

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

15 vehicles in the month of August, 2011 and for 21 vehicles in the month of February, 2012 and paid the taxes accordingly. The appellant has paid road tax amounting to Rs.460/- for each vehicle. Mere non-registration of vehicles under Motor Vehicles Act will not disentitle the appellant for claiming depreciation. The purpose of registration under Motor Vehicles

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

15 and the Assessing Officer has not passed the order under sub-section (13) of that section on or before the specified date, the amount of tax payable by the appellant as per the assessment order to be passed by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (13) thereof; (F) in a case where an application for revision under section

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

15, and demonstrated that the only reason assigned by Ld. AO for disallowing assessee’s claim of additional depreciation is that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction of road and not into the business of manufacture or production, therefore does not fulfill the primary eligibility- condition prescribed in section

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

Depreciation on PET CT SCAN at Rs.1,61,00,262/- has been claimed at higher rate of 40% instead of 15% which has been allowed by the AO without any enquiry. [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] L. the AO has allowed salary paid amounting to Rs.4,75,90,791/- without verifying whether TDS as per provisions of the Income

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 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

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 139(4) of the Act on 31.03.2012 declaring business loss of Rs. 1,02,098/- book loss of Rs.1,81,15,601/- and claiming carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation

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

Section 139(4) of the Act on 31.03.2012 declaring business loss of Rs. 1,02,098/- book loss of Rs.1,81,15,601/- and claiming carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 139(4) of the Act on 31.03.2012 declaring business loss of Rs. 1,02,098/- book loss of Rs.1,81,15,601/- and claiming carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 139(4) of the Act on 31.03.2012 declaring business loss of Rs. 1,02,098/- book loss of Rs.1,81,15,601/- and claiming carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

15. Depreciation 5,72,905 Net Loss after Depreciation -4,08,557 33. The total expenses as incurred by the assessee was of Rs 3,35,652/-. The assessee prior to claiming of depreciation of Rs 5,72,905/- earned net income of Rs 1,64,348/-. Thus, it is not correct on the part of the assessing officer

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

15. Depreciation 5,72,905 Net Loss after Depreciation -4,08,557 33. The total expenses as incurred by the assessee was of Rs 3,35,652/-. The assessee prior to claiming of depreciation of Rs 5,72,905/- earned net income of Rs 1,64,348/-. Thus, it is not correct on the part of the assessing officer

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

15. Depreciation 5,72,905 Net Loss after Depreciation -4,08,557 33. The total expenses as incurred by the assessee was of Rs 3,35,652/-. The assessee prior to claiming of depreciation of Rs 5,72,905/- earned net income of Rs 1,64,348/-. Thus, it is not correct on the part of the assessing officer