ACIT, RATLAM vs. M/S SHIRANI MOTORS PVT. LTD., RATLAM (MP)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

section 2(22)(e), both the conditions regarding assessee being registered as well as beneficial shareholder of the lender company are required to be established- In the present case, the assessee is neither a registered nor a beneficial shareholder of the lender company-Therefore, there is no infirmity in order of CIT(A)-ITAT confirmed the order

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

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

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and held that the income from leasing out of profession u/s. 28 without appreciating the fact that the present case is running a mall and deriving income letting out of shopping mall as well as business income from common are maintenance of shopping mall and the decision of Apex Court in the case

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and held that the income from leasing out of profession u/s. 28 without appreciating the fact that the present case is running a mall and deriving income letting out of shopping mall as well as business income from common are maintenance of shopping mall and the decision of Apex Court in the case

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 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and held that the income from leasing out of profession u/s. 28 without appreciating the fact that the present case is running a mall and deriving income letting out of shopping mall as well as business income from common are maintenance of shopping mall and the decision of Apex Court in the case

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and held that the income from leasing out of profession u/s. 28 without appreciating the fact that the present case is running a mall and deriving income letting out of shopping mall as well as business income from common are maintenance of shopping mall and the decision of Apex Court in the case

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

depreciation allowance" in Section 147 after the conditions for reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in Clauses (a) and (b) viz., "escaped assessment". The term "escaped assessment" includes both "non- assessment" as well as "under assessment". Income is said to have "escaped assessment" within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged

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

depreciation item accounted for in books of account which stood claimed as deduction in Page 11 of 17 M/s. Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan ITA No. 509/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 return of income. The assessee submits that it was an inadvertent claim and not a result of any attempt of assessee to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars

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

depreciation item accounted for in books of account which stood claimed as deduction in Page 11 of 17 M/s. Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan ITA No. 509/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 return of income. The assessee submits that it was an inadvertent claim and not a result of any attempt of assessee to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed. ITA Nos.71/Ind/2018 Shri Sandeep Mehta vs. ITO AY :2009-10 5 Explanation 3. For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice

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

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:

22(4 )/23 (2) of the Indian Income tax Ad, 1922 or under section 142(1 )/143 (2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 No dated ___________________ *have concealed the particulars of your income or............................_ furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.30 AM on 14.12.2017 and show cause why an order imposing

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

section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] on the following Page 1 of 22 Cummins Technologies India P. ltd. Page 2 of 22 grounds which are independent of and without prejudice to each other. 1. General Ground: Transfer pricing adjustment of INR 4,84,19,012/- 1.1 On the facts and in circumstances

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation u/ s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation u/ s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation u/ s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation u/ s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

22,57,23,589/- on account of claim of addition depreciation u/ s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act,1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the M/s. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. ITA No.782/ind/2018 & others