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

section 47(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot take amount of capital asset different from amalgamating companies because the transactions would not be treated as transfer and cost of asset as to be same in case of successor. The depreciation is allowable only on written down value of block assets considering actual cost and any asset which

THE ACIT- 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S PRESTIGE FEED MILLS LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit-4(1) Prestige Feed Mills Ltd. Indore 30, Jaora Compound Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcp0412H Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2023

depreciation on fixed assets and expenditure on account of salary & wages under the head “Employee benefit Expenses” to the tune of Rs.3,06,69,470/-. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that the order passed u/s 154 is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of section

PERFECT REALLNFRA ( INDIA) P LTD ,KHANDWA vs. ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

154 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and its books of accounts were audited under Section 44AB of the Act. Due to certain circumstances the original return of income was filed belatedly

THE ACIT-4(1) , INDORE vs. PARVATI SWEETNERS AND POWER LTD, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 A.C.I.T., Parvati Sweetners & 4(1), Power Limited, Indore. 119/1, Naroli Arcade बनाम/ Manormaganj, Vs. Near Palasia Square, Indore. (Appellant /Revenue) (Respondent/Assessee) Pan: Aagcp3350D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, C. A. & Shri Soumya Bumb, Ca Revenue By Shri Ms.Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2014

depreciation taken up by AO for rectification was a debatable issue and hence outside the scope of section 154. Learned

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

154/- required to be added. C. The assessee had claimed and allowed by the Assessing Officer, the additional depreciation for Rs.16,45,94,950/- (being Rs. 229,12,326/- on DTA unit, Rs.141,47,233/- on SEZ unit and Rs.12,74,35,391/- on Kashpur unit) in addition to normal depreciation. Further, it was observed that the following

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 32(1)(iia) would be permissible to the extent allowed as depreciation.” 25.12. In light of the above decision we find that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of RMC. Now we need to consider as to which plant and machinery would be eligible for additional depreciation and investment allowance. In this regard, it is necessary

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,86,21,994/-. Thereafter, on 04.03.2015, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and vide AO’s letter dated 27.05.2015, reasons for reopening the case were provided to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,86,21,994/-. Thereafter, on 04.03.2015, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and vide AO’s letter dated 27.05.2015, reasons for reopening the case were provided to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,86,21,994/-. Thereafter, on 04.03.2015, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and vide AO’s letter dated 27.05.2015, reasons for reopening the case were provided to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,86,21,994/-. Thereafter, on 04.03.2015, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and vide AO’s letter dated 27.05.2015, reasons for reopening the case were provided to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed

M/S. SHREE VIGNESH WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DY CIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vighnesh Warehouse Dcit, Cpc & Distributors Private Bangaluru बनाम/ Limited Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue)

154 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] for assessment-year [in short “AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has preferred this appeal on following grounds: “1. Addition made by AO at Rs. 51,40,795/- in respect to profit on sale of depreciable assets even though block of assets is not ceased to exist is unjustified, unwarranted

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

section 154 of the Act to such apparent mistake but disposal of same was not reflected upto date of filing of first appeal due to started recovery proceeding against tax levied. Thus dismissal of appeal is illegal and bad in law. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the company the order of AddI CIT/JCIT(A) refuse to admit

GOPAL MUWEL,MANAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshigopal Muwel, Ito बनाम/ Morad, Manawar, Dhar Vs. Dhar (Pan: Caapm6256Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lucky Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

154. Therefore the Ld. AO issued a show cause dt 17.8.2022 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act should not be disallowed. The core contention of the assessee at the "impugned Assessment Order” stage was that the Assessee is engaged in the business of construction & offered tax under presumptive

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

SHRI YOGESH HOTWANI,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Depreciation Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Total 12,554,028 12,640,728 10,317,385 10,188,642 6,077,232 Expenses 8,960,546 7,714,292 6,154,570 4,378,113 4,821,128 Adjusted Net Profit Adjusted N P 3.73% 2.51% 3.27% 4.76% 2.85% Ratio 7.3 From the above table it is seen that Assessment

THE ACIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI YOGESH KUMAR HOTWANI, MANDSAUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Depreciation Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Total 12,554,028 12,640,728 10,317,385 10,188,642 6,077,232 Expenses 8,960,546 7,714,292 6,154,570 4,378,113 4,821,128 Adjusted Net Profit Adjusted N P 3.73% 2.51% 3.27% 4.76% 2.85% Ratio 7.3 From the above table it is seen that Assessment

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

depreciation. Accordingly, both grounds of appeal are allowed. 8. To maintain the rule of consistency we follow the earlier order of this Tribunal and decide this issue in favour of the assessee so far as the subsidy received by the assesse under Maharashtra Industrial Promotion Scheme. 9. Ground no.2 is regarding the addition made

INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2009-10

depreciation in the value of the foreign currency is regarded either as profit or loss on trading/revenue account. On the other hand, if the foreign exchange liability arises in relation to acquisition of fixed asset, the corresponding gain or loss is regarded as of a capital nature. 2.3 Foreign exchange loss cannot be disallowed merely because the loss