M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

depreciation of Rs 6,22,197/-even when the said building was for running of the school. 6) The Ld CIT (A) was also erred in deciding the charging of in interest as consequential in nature even when in the case of re-assessment interest is chargeable under sub-section (3) of section 234B of the income

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

depreciation of Rs 6,22,197/-even when the said building was for running of the school. 6) The Ld CIT (A) was also erred in deciding the charging of in interest as consequential in nature even when in the case of re-assessment interest is chargeable under sub-section (3) of section 234B of the income

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

depreciation of Rs 6,22,197/-even when the said building was for running of the school. 6) The Ld CIT (A) was also erred in deciding the charging of in interest as consequential in nature even when in the case of re-assessment interest is chargeable under sub-section (3) of section 234B of the income

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

depreciation. 26. The learned Sr. D.R. further referring to newly inserted provisions of section 2 (29BA) of the Act relating to the definition of “manufacture”” submitted that the claim of the assessee is untenable, as word manufacture required a change in no leaving physical object or article or a thing. And in the instant case qua the electricity generated

SHRI DR. LIYAKAT ALI KAPADIYA,UJJAIN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 (1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2013-14

27-8-2002 that the basic intention to insert section 5OC was for the purpose of determining full value of sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains under section 48. There should not be any cloud of doubt that section 5OC has application only to the extent of determining sale consideration for computation. of capital gain under

M/S MALVIKA AGROTECH PVT. LTD.,DHAR vs. THE ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Malvika Agrotech Ito, 2(2), Pvt. Ltd, Indore Plot No.185, Sector-1, Pithampur, Dhar (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaccm6451G Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri C.P. Rawka,Ca Date Of Hearing 10.09.2018 Date Of 19.9.2018 Pronouncement

27-8-2002 that the basic intention to insert section 5OC was for the purpose of determining full value of sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains under section 48. There should not be any cloud of doubt that section 5OC has application only to the extent of determining sale consideration for computation. of capital gain under

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

27-37 of the paperbook. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:- “12. The term "total number of Councillors" has been used in the Act at several place and would be found in Sections 81(2), 81 (9) (a) (i) and (ii) 81 (15), 19(2), 63 (1) 65(2) and proviso to Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, NASHIK vs. MAHAKALESHWAR TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 123/Ind/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

depreciation on license to collect toll" considering it as an intangible asset in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are : The assessee is engaged in development and construction of four laning of Indore-Ujjain Road

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

27,31,06,234 x Rs. 217,85,43,940x 50 = Rs.12,51,79,200/- Rs.237,64,88789 Therefore the amount of claim of Rs.12,5l,79,200/- is worked out in accordance with the provision under section 1OA of Income Tax Act, 1961." 15. From perusal of the extract of the questionnaire issued by Ld. A.O dated

D.K CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

27. That takes us to the argument of the assessee that the stipulation in Section 801B(10)(a) of completion certificate issued by the Local Authority before the cut off date, cannot be applied in the case of assessee following the work in progress accounting method. In our opinion, the provision in the form of Section 801B(10)(a), applies

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

27 – 30. Ground No.4:- Restricting depreciation on fixed assets at Rs.74,63,469/- as against Rs.1,55,95,905/- claimed by the assessee is under challenge before us. 31. The assessee has shown the entire income under the head “Income from Business” and claimed depreciation of Rs.1,55,95,905/- on its fixed asset in the return of income

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

27 – 30. Ground No.4:- Restricting depreciation on fixed assets at Rs.74,63,469/- as against Rs.1,55,95,905/- claimed by the assessee is under challenge before us. 31. The assessee has shown the entire income under the head “Income from Business” and claimed depreciation of Rs.1,55,95,905/- on its fixed asset in the return of income

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

27 – 30. Ground No.4:- Restricting depreciation on fixed assets at Rs.74,63,469/- as against Rs.1,55,95,905/- claimed by the assessee is under challenge before us. 31. The assessee has shown the entire income under the head “Income from Business” and claimed depreciation of Rs.1,55,95,905/- on its fixed asset in the return of income

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

27 – 30. Ground No.4:- Restricting depreciation on fixed assets at Rs.74,63,469/- as against Rs.1,55,95,905/- claimed by the assessee is under challenge before us. 31. The assessee has shown the entire income under the head “Income from Business” and claimed depreciation of Rs.1,55,95,905/- on its fixed asset in the return of income

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

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

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall