M/S SANGHI BROTHERS,,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5 (1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09

Section 32, it is required that the machinery is to be put to use for the purpose of business. As far as the vehicles in question are concerned, they were already put to use for the purpose of the business; hence deserve for the claim of depreciation. But the question before us is that Whether the assets in question

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

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

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

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

depreciation on said goodwill in terms of section 32(1) of the Act. Further, it is not open to the AO to try to evade from the binding effect of a Supreme Court decision by trying to find out 'distinguishing features'. Accordingly, 1 hereby direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.7,30

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

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

THE ITO, (EXEMPTION), INDORE vs. M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

depreciation on the higher rate 30% as against 15% allowable as per Rule 5 of Income-tax Rules. Now we will take up I.T.A.No. 139/IND/2015. N.T. Thomas Memorial Educational & Society I.T.A. No.139 & 150 /Ind/2015/A.Y.: 11-12 Page 3 of11 3. Ground No. 1 relates to not allowing the benefit of carry forward of losses. 4. Briefly stated the facts

M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

depreciation on the higher rate 30% as against 15% allowable as per Rule 5 of Income-tax Rules. Now we will take up I.T.A.No. 139/IND/2015. N.T. Thomas Memorial Educational & Society I.T.A. No.139 & 150 /Ind/2015/A.Y.: 11-12 Page 3 of11 3. Ground No. 1 relates to not allowing the benefit of carry forward of losses. 4. Briefly stated the facts

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

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

depreciation. 04.That the Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I without appreciating the submission of the assessee company, treated the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and passed order under section 263 of the Income Tax. 05.That the assessee company craves leave to add, alter, amend and or delete any grounds of appeal.” Flexituff International

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

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