M/S KALINDI PLACE ,BHOPSL vs. ACIT CPC ,BANGLORE, BANGLORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

section 154 of the Act on 19.06.2013 requesting to allow unabsorbed depreciation as claimed in return. 3. Aggrieved against this

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

3) was completed vide order dated 19.12.2011 thereby making addition of Rs. 37,25,962/- on account of low net profit and deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) and hence assessing total income at Rs. 1,81,09,150/-. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income

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

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

3) was completed vide order dated 19.12.2011 thereby making addition of Rs. 37,25,962/- on account of low net profit and deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) and hence assessing total income at Rs. 1,81,09,150/-. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income

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

3) was completed vide order dated 19.12.2011 thereby making addition of Rs. 37,25,962/- on account of low net profit and deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) and hence assessing total income at Rs. 1,81,09,150/-. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income

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

3) was completed vide order dated 19.12.2011 thereby making addition of Rs. 37,25,962/- on account of low net profit and deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) and hence assessing total income at Rs. 1,81,09,150/-. Thereafter, an order u/s 154 was passed on 26.12.2012 on the question of depreciation resulting into determination of total income

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 154 of the Act as it is not a mistake apparent from the record

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

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

3) of the Act should be revised as per the revised income, assessing the income at Rs.68,25,860/- after various disallowance aggregating to Rs.66,237/-. The order under Section 154 of the Act was passed on 13.05.2019 thereby rejecting the rectification application. 4. Being aggrieved by the order under section 154 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before

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 NARSHING BINDAL,DEWAS vs. ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Narsingh Bindal, Acit-1(1) 154, M.G. Road, Kannod, Ujjain बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajhpb 1234 B Assessee By Shri R.S. Dave, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2023

154, M.G. Road, Kannod, Ujjain बनाम/ Dewas Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AJHPB 1234 B Assessee by Shri R.S. Dave, Adv. Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 09.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 03.08.2020 passed by learned Commissioner of Income

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

3) on 29.12.2016. Subsequently, the AO rectified the said assessment- order u/s 154 vide order dated 31.03.2021 whereby he disallowed depreciation of Rs. 6,32,96,126/-, which was allowed in scrutiny- assessment, on the premise that the assessee had not submitted any evidence of additions in fixed assets. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and argued that

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

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 2(29BA) of the Act should be strictly followed for examining the activity being in the nature of manufacturer, reliance was placed on following decisions: 1. Bhaskar Narayan Hardikar and Anr. Vs. S.G. Daithankar and Ors. Reported in AIR 1971 Bom 188 2. Suresh Lohiya vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (SC)dated 23.08.1996 3. PCIT vs. Lakesh Handa

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

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

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)

depreciable asset Shri Vignesh Warehouse and Distributors Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.05/Ind/2022 Assessment year 2015-16 under the head business and profession is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) at para 8 erred in observing that appeal is dismissed. 4. The appellant denies liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234C

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

section 14A of the Income Tax, 1961 read with rule 8D. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 21,33,556/- made by the Assessing officer on account of disallowance of various expenses. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

section 14A of the Income Tax, 1961 read with rule 8D. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of 21,33,556/- made by the Assessing officer on account of disallowance of various expenses. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case