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

30 to 36. This is implied in the very scheme of sections and there was no necessity to speak on this aspect in section 37(1) but the Parliament has still mentioned to keep the scope of section 37(1) clear and doubt-free. In fact, in the very decision of Checkmate Services (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

30 to 36. This is implied in the very scheme of sections and there was no necessity to speak on this aspect in section 37(1) but the Parliament has still mentioned to keep the scope of section 37(1) clear and doubt-free. In fact, in the very decision of Checkmate Services (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

30 to 36. This is implied in the very scheme of sections and there was no necessity to speak on this aspect in section 37(1) but the Parliament has still mentioned to keep the scope of section 37(1) clear and doubt-free. In fact, in the very decision of Checkmate Services (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

30 to 36. This is implied in the very scheme of sections and there was no necessity to speak on this aspect in section 37(1) but the Parliament has still mentioned to keep the scope of section 37(1) clear and doubt-free. In fact, in the very decision of Checkmate Services (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

30 to 36. This is implied in the very scheme of sections and there was no necessity to speak on this aspect in section 37(1) but the Parliament has still mentioned to keep the scope of section 37(1) clear and doubt-free. In fact, in the very decision of Checkmate Services (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

30 to 36. This is implied in the very scheme of sections and there was no necessity to speak on this aspect in section 37(1) but the Parliament has still mentioned to keep the scope of section 37(1) clear and doubt-free. In fact, in the very decision of Checkmate Services (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

30 to 36. This is implied in the very scheme of sections and there was no necessity to speak on this aspect in section 37(1) but the Parliament has still mentioned to keep the scope of section 37(1) clear and doubt-free. In fact, in the very decision of Checkmate Services (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. MADHURI REFINERS (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Madhuri Refiners Dcit, 3(1) Private Ltd., Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcm 1884 C Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

section 32(1)(iia): (iia) in the case of any new machinery or plant (other than ships and aircraft), which has been acquired and installed after the 31st day of March, 2005, by an Assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, a further sum equal to twenty percent of the actual cost

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL.,JT.,DY.,ASSTT.ITO, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

depreciation for a sum of Rs.66,441 should be\nallowed in terms of sections 30 and 32 of the Act. The said

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 2 and in this definition the word ‘object’ was also included. 30. We, thus, set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and allow the assessee claim made for additional depreciation

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

30 – iii) It is submitted that the appellant has constructed its Shopping Mall in various phases and in its audited balance sheet, the appellant has shown only the completed portion of the building as it is tangible depreciable asset and on such completed portion only, it has claimed the appreciation at the prescribed rate as per the Companies

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

30 – iii) It is submitted that the appellant has constructed its Shopping Mall in various phases and in its audited balance sheet, the appellant has shown only the completed portion of the building as it is tangible depreciable asset and on such completed portion only, it has claimed the appreciation at the prescribed rate as per the Companies

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

30 – iii) It is submitted that the appellant has constructed its Shopping Mall in various phases and in its audited balance sheet, the appellant has shown only the completed portion of the building as it is tangible depreciable asset and on such completed portion only, it has claimed the appreciation at the prescribed rate as per the Companies

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

30 – iii) It is submitted that the appellant has constructed its Shopping Mall in various phases and in its audited balance sheet, the appellant has shown only the completed portion of the building as it is tangible depreciable asset and on such completed portion only, it has claimed the appreciation at the prescribed rate as per the Companies

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

30, 2009. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is not considered justified in bringing to tax the profit of Rs.1,66,70,811 in the year under consideration, particularly when such profits have already been offered to tax by the appellant in the assessment year 2007-08. The addition of Rs.1,66,70,811 are directed to be deleted". 36. Further

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

section 43(1) as also the CBDT Circular No. 715, dated 8-8-1995 and the judgement of the Supreme court in the case of CCE v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., wherein the SC held that Reimbursable expenses are not deductible, completely ignoring that the assessee has claimed already reimbursed expenses in shape of depreciation and this claim

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

section 43(1) as also the CBDT Circular No. 715, dated 8-8-1995 and the judgement of the Supreme court in the case of CCE v. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., wherein the SC held that Reimbursable expenses are not deductible, completely ignoring that the assessee has claimed already reimbursed expenses in shape of depreciation and this claim

SHRI HUMAD JAIN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. ITO 2(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\nthe relevant assessment year):\nProvided that\nProvided further that........\nProvided also that .....\nExplanation (1) ......\nExplanation (2).......\nExplanation 3 : For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under\nthis section, the Assessing