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

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% depreciation on truck under the head 'Plant & Machinery. The claim was accepted during scrutiny

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal for Page 23 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutatis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal for Page 23 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutatis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal for Page 23 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutatis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal for Page 23 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutatis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal for Page 23 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutatis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal for Page 23 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutatis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal for Page 23 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutatis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 3 of Revenue’s appeal for Page 23 of 29 STI India Ltd. ITA Nos.11, 850, 12, 13/Ind/2019 & 22, 784, 23 & 24/Ind/2019 (A.Y.2012-13 to 2015-16) AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutatis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same

ANDRITZ HYDRO P LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

section 115JB of the Act. 7.Erred by not following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Woodward Governor India Private Limited (312 ITR 254) in respect of allowability of foreign exchange losses. 8.Erred by blatantly disregarding the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Indore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation; any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income- tax Act, to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

depreciation by the AO in the scrutiny assessment of the lender company would not epso facto lead to the conclusion that the transactions of loan between the lender company and assesse is not genuine. The Pr. CIT has not even verified the balance sheet and bank account statement of the lender company to come to prima facie conclusion that

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

254(2) of the Act on the ground that the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by ITAT was suffering from an apparent mistake in as much as the Ground No. 4, 5 & 7 of assessee’s appeal relating to TDS u/s 194J out of roaming charges paid to OTOs Page 3 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

254(2) of the Act on the ground that the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by ITAT was suffering from an apparent mistake in as much as the Ground No. 4, 5 & 7 of assessee’s appeal relating to TDS u/s 194J out of roaming charges paid to OTOs Page 3 of 65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018

DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

254 Taxman 384 (Guj.) (HC). The court had held that "on verifying the record it was found that there was no nexus with reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings and the information received by the AO from the investigating wing accordingly reassessment was held to be bad in law". (vi) In the case of Deepraj Hospital

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

254/- which proves the consistency of\naccounting policy.\nThe company had provided for a sum of Rs.60.63 lacs as\naccrued income on outstanding dues from export\ndebtors in A.Y. 2020-21 which was reversed in year under\nappeal i.e. A.Y 2021-22 and charged to profit and loss\naccount vide note no. 34.22 of the Audited Balance\nsheet which

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this Tribunal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-1045/21-22 dated 22.07.2022 [DR NO.-31/10 D.No.-104] passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred

RAMA GARG,SEHORE vs. DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rama Garg, Dcit-3(1), Gadhi Chok, Bhopal Chota Bazar, Vs. Nasrullaganj, Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abcpg1140J Assessee By Shri R.K. Mangal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024

254/- however, during the assessment proceedings the assessee failed to produce any bill of electricity despite various opportunities provided by the Assessing Officer to substantiate of her claim of electricity expenses. Therefore, the claim of the assessee was absolutely not tenable. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case