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)

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 on S.H. No. 27 from Chainage 5/2 at Indore to Chainage 53 at Ujjain on Build, Operate

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

Section 32 of the Act actual user of the property is not the precondition and depreciation can be allowed even for a passive user of the property if it is ready for use for the intended purpose the claim of depreciation of such assets, since has been made at the rates and on the prescribed manner, the claim

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 32 of the Act actual user of the property is not the precondition and depreciation can be allowed even for a passive user of the property if it is ready for use for the intended purpose the claim of depreciation of such assets, since has been made at the rates and on the prescribed manner, the claim

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 32 of the Act actual user of the property is not the precondition and depreciation can be allowed even for a passive user of the property if it is ready for use for the intended purpose the claim of depreciation of such assets, since has been made at the rates and on the prescribed manner, the claim

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 32 of the Act actual user of the property is not the precondition and depreciation can be allowed even for a passive user of the property if it is ready for use for the intended purpose the claim of depreciation of such assets, since has been made at the rates and on the prescribed manner, the claim

M/S S.D.BANSAL IRON & STEEL P LTD ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 69C and entails a detailed working of depreciation. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow depreciation to assessee in accordance with law. The assessee is also direct to extend fullest co- operation to AO and provide necessary details, if any, required by AO. This ground of assessee is thus allowed for statistical purpose. Assessee’s Additional Ground: 33

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 under this Act has been computed. ITA Nos.71/Ind/2018 Shri Sandeep Mehta vs. ITO AY :2009-10 5 Explanation 3. For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice

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

SINGH GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO.,INDORE vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2019-20

section 115BBE. Your reply on this issue alongwith on the uncomplied issues of the questionnaires earlier issued in your case should reach this office within three days of receipt of this communication. Any letter furnished by you seeking for adjournment may please be treated as disposed off. Please note that in case of failure in doing so, it will

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

33,12,350/- as per registered sale deeds from sale of units in ‘The View’ project were not 6 Mohanlal Chugh & others found recorded in the regular books of account. The Assessing Officer further noted that the taxable profit cannot be less than 30% of the total sales consideration as per registered sale deeds. The Assessing Officer also noted that

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

33,12,350/- as per registered sale deeds from sale of units in ‘The View’ project were not 6 Mohanlal Chugh & others found recorded in the regular books of account. The Assessing Officer further noted that the taxable profit cannot be less than 30% of the total sales consideration as per registered sale deeds. The Assessing Officer also noted that

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

33,12,350/- as per registered sale deeds from sale of units in ‘The View’ project were not 6 Mohanlal Chugh & others found recorded in the regular books of account. The Assessing Officer further noted that the taxable profit cannot be less than 30% of the total sales consideration as per registered sale deeds. The Assessing Officer also noted that

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

33. This ground relates to the disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 2 of Assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutadis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same, Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 34. This grounds relates

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

33. This ground relates to the disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 2 of Assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutadis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same, Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 34. This grounds relates

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

33. This ground relates to the disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 2 of Assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutadis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same, Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 34. This grounds relates

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

33. This ground relates to the disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 2 of Assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutadis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same, Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 34. This grounds relates

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

33. This ground relates to the disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 2 of Assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutadis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same, Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 34. This grounds relates

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

33. This ground relates to the disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery. The ground is similar to Ground No. 2 of Assessee’s appeal for AY 2012-13 already adjudicated by us in foregoing paragraph. Hence, our same view shall apply mutadis mutandis. Respectfully applying the same, Assessee’s ground is allowed. Ground No. 2: 34. This grounds relates