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

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

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

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

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(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

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P 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

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

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

3 to section 32(1) of the Act and therefore, eligible for depreciation u/s.32 of the Act. 6.12 Accordingly

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

section 147. The CIT (A) out to have declared reassessment proceedings without jurisdiction and bad in law. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in maintaining disallowance of claim of additional depreciation

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

3) of section 80-IA provides that - For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (a) Such machinery or plant was not, at any time

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

3) of section 80-IA provides that - For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (a) Such machinery or plant was not, at any time

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

3) of section 80-IA provides that - For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (a) Such machinery or plant was not, at any time

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

3) of section 80-IA provides that - For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (a) Such machinery or plant was not, at any time

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

3) of section 80-IA provides that - For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (a) Such machinery or plant was not, at any time

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

3) of section 80-IA provides that - For the purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than the assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (a) Such machinery or plant was not, at any time

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, 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) : ITA Nos.71/Ind/2018 Shri Sandeep Mehta vs. ITO AY :2009-10 4 Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section

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

3) of section 158A of the Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Titanor Page 9 of 14 ITANo.23/Ind/2022 D.K. Construction Components Ltd. v. CIT323 ITR 266 has analyzed the provisions of section 158A and held in para 7 to 12 as under: “7. The appellant Company wants depreciation