MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

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

155/- out of Depreciation on Car be held to be bad and unjustified and be deleted. Ground.5. That the disallowance of Rs.31,095/- out of Tanker Repairs & Maintenance be held to be bad and unjustified and be deleted. Ground.6. That the disallowance of Rs.27,510/- out of Repairs & Maintenance be held to be bad and unjustified and be deleted. Ground.7

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

depreciation at Rs.1,53,066/- to be carry forward for set up in subsequent years. 3. After passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. Pr. CIT examined the assessment records and documents filed by the assessee and notice that the M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. assessment order is prima facie, erroneous and prejudicial

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other\nallowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned\n(hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the\nrelevant assessment year).\"\nIt is submitted that \"Reasons to Believe\" that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment is one of the conditions precedent for reopening of assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of Page 3 of 7 ACIT, Central-1, Bhopal Vs. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No. 31 & 57/Ind/2024

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of Page 3 of 7 ACIT, Central-1, Bhopal Vs. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No. 31 & 57/Ind/2024

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. MARAL OVERSEAS LTD, KHARGONE

In the result, the “Impugned

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideputy Commissioner Of Maral Overseas Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax- 4(1) Maral Srovar, V & Po, Vs. Indore Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal (Pan: Aaccm0230B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

depreciation for the income tax return. b. In the revised return filed on 16.07.1993, the company though offered the said interest as income from other sources, however, it was claimed by way of a note appended to the return of income that the said income is not taxable and have been rightly deducted from pre-operative expenses c. The assessment