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

depreciation is that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction of road and not into the business of manufacture or production, therefore does not fulfill the primary eligibility- condition prescribed in section 32

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) of the act, which grants the benefit of additional depreciation, reads as under: “32.(1) In respect

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 of Rs.4,05,75,163/- claimed in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assesse company in the “Build Operate and Transfer” project (i.e. cost of project) by considering such expenditure as an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act without appreciating the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act? 5. Whether

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act without appreciating the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act? 5. Whether

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

depreciation and not as revenue expenditure. After hearing, Ld. AR filed a Written-Note on 04.08.2023 acknowledged by office of ITAT through Inward No. 679 on the non-applicability of Explanation 1 to section 32

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

depreciation under Section 32 is held to be admissible on actual costs for acquisition, the benefit of additional amount of depreciation

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

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 for the same was not allowable in view of provision of section 32. Hence, the excess depreciation of Rs.38

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

depreciation, i.e, Section 32 of IT Act in respect of any machinery if owned, wholly or partially by the assessee

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

32,31,505/- is the outcome of non-acceptance of claim of additional depreciation made by assessee in terms of section