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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

263 without considering and rejecting the contentions of the Appellant raised in the Appellant's submission dated 19 February 2020. On merits of the issue involved in revision proceedings: 6.Erred by not accepting the Appellant's contention that the provision for mark to market loss on forward contracts is not a contingent liability and hence it should not be disallowed

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

section 263 in respect of the said issue as under: Page 27 of 55 SR Ferro Alloys Page 28 of 55 “Further it was also noticed from the Audit report of the assessee that the assessee had claimed to have taken unsecured loan of Rs.3,86,98,893/- from M/s Nikita Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. It is settled legal position

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

section 263 i.e. order should be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of revenue are not satisfied. 9. Being erroneous always refers to ‘being an error of law / jurisdiction’ i.e. an incorrect application of law. An order passed by an Assessing Officer can be treated as erroneous if the view taken by the assessing officer is unsustainable

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

depreciation or good will is concerned. Nothing prevented the Ld. Pr.CIT to conduct enquires as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects [343 ITR 329], the relevant findings read as under: -\n\"Section 263

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the petitioners have settled the case under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. 39. The question therefore that arises for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings initiated after the petitioners opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 are sustainable

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

MP STATE MINING CORPORATION,BHOPAL vs. PCIT-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp State Mining Corporation Pr. Cit-1 Paryavas Bhavan Block No.1, Bhopal Area Hills Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcm0300K Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ars Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 30.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.05.2024

depreciation of new assets is only Rs.3,18,706/- whereas the expenditure on foreign travel of MD is at Rs.2,43,000/-. The total of these two claims is less than 0.01% of the total revenue/income of the assessee. Thus, Ld. Sr. counsel has submitted that section 263

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 claimed by assessee was not allowable due to Explanation to section 43(1). Accordingly, the PCIT-1, Bhopal, after giving opportunity to assessee, passed revision-order dated 26.10.2018 u/s 263

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 claimed by assessee was not allowable due to Explanation to section 43(1). Accordingly, the PCIT-1, Bhopal, after giving opportunity to assessee, passed revision-order dated 26.10.2018 u/s 263

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply affording charges

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply affording charges

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply affording charges

M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO LTD,INDORE vs. THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply affording charges

THE DY CIT1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

section 263 dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the assessment order dated 27.03.2014 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was observed by Pr. CIT that the AO did not take cognizance of points regarding the claim of the assesse treating the supply affording charges

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

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. ODDIVILLE FOODS AND FROZEN, INDORE

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed\nand the order of the Ld

section 263, in our view, is devoid of merit. Once the original assessment\nis set aside by the PCIT and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for\nfresh examination, the proceedings conducted thereafter assume the\ncharacter of a fresh assessment and the AO is required to consider all\nrelevant material available on record while adjudicating

NOORUL HASAN BAIG,2013-14 vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Noorul Hasan Baig, A.C.I.T., E-78, Koh-E-Fiza, 5(1), बनाम/ Bairagarh Road, Bhopal. Vs. Bhopal. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Afmpb1286N Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

section 263. The AO repeated the original addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- and at the same time, also made a newer disallowance of Rs. 2,10,081/- on account of depreciation

SAIPHIA TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) , NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2015-16 Saiphia Technology Private Nfac Limited, Delhi 1St Floor Ankit Plaza, बनाम/ Kolar Road, Vs. Near Nayapura Bus Stop, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aancs1814Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2025

263. However, identical claim of additional depreciation has not been allowed by present AO (who is faceless) for AY 2015-16 as involved in present case. Ld. AR submitted that when the assessing authority has allowed the claim of additional depreciation in preceding AY 2014-15, the identical claim even if not allowed in current AY 2015-16, cannot