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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

35. The income from leasing out properties in the Mall has been held to be chargeable to tax under the head “Income from Business”. In that view of the matter the appellant is eligible for claim of depreciation of all the business assets which were either actually put to use or were ready

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

35. The income from leasing out properties in the Mall has been held to be chargeable to tax under the head “Income from Business”. In that view of the matter the appellant is eligible for claim of depreciation of all the business assets which were either actually put to use or were ready

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

35. The income from leasing out properties in the Mall has been held to be chargeable to tax under the head “Income from Business”. In that view of the matter the appellant is eligible for claim of depreciation of all the business assets which were either actually put to use or were ready

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 of eligible units would be allowable for set off immediately on the expiry of the period of tax holiday i.e. 10 years. The provisions of Sections 32, 32A, 33, 35

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

35,652/- against its M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 5 of 66 coaching income without properly appreciating the fact of the case and submission made before him. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of depreciation

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

35,652/- against its M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 5 of 66 coaching income without properly appreciating the fact of the case and submission made before him. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of depreciation

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

35,652/- against its M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 5 of 66 coaching income without properly appreciating the fact of the case and submission made before him. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of depreciation

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

35,652/- against its M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 5 of 66 coaching income without properly appreciating the fact of the case and submission made before him. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of depreciation

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

35,652/- against its M/s.Sheetu Educational Services P.Ltd. I.T.A.Nos. 24 to 26/Ind2015 and 352 to 354/Ind/2016 Page 5 of 66 coaching income without properly appreciating the fact of the case and submission made before him. 5) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance of depreciation

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

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

35) shown in the P&L a/c and claimed in the return and treating the same as being infructuous holding that no such disallowances u/s.40(b) of the Act has been discussed or made in the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 dtd. 27.09.2021. 7. That, the appellant craves your leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal

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 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

depreciation on extra cost of construction added by him as per report of DVO.” Additional ground by assessee: “That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 47,52,500/- made by AO invoking provisions of section 69C on account of alleged unexplained expenditure vide para 11.6 of order of assessment.” 3. Heard the learned representatives of both

THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SYMBIOTIC PHARMALAB LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit 5(1), M/S. Symbiotic Indore बनाम/ Pharmalab Ltd. 385, Vs. Pigdamber, Rau, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcs9311 Revenue By Shri Ashima Gupta, Cit- Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Kapil Shah, Cas Date Of Hearing: 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal Of Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 31.12.2015 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On M/S. Symboitic Pharmalab Ltd. Itano.373/Ind/2016 05.12.2011 By Acit, 5(1) Indore. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Restricting The Addition Of Rs. 2,60,50,027/- To Rs.3,74,195/- & Addition Made By The Ao 'After Disallowing U/S 35(2Ab) Deleted To The Extent Of Rs. 2,56,75,832/- On Account Of R&D Expenditure Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Had Pointed Out That Disr Has Not Issue Report In Form 3Cl To Dgit Exemption & Even When No Satisfactory Clarification Was Given By The Assessee To The Ao.” “2.Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 9,97,920/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Foreign Exchange Loss Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Had Pointed Out That The Loss Claimed By The Assessee In The Year Of Fluctuation In The Rate Of Exchange Or The Same Is Allowable Only In The Year' Of Repayment Of Such Loans.”

section 35(2AB) from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010and further extension of approval from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012 has also been given to the assessee company. Copies of these approval letters have been placed before me at pages 124 and 126 of the PB. 8 M/s. Symboitic Pharmalab Ltd. ITANo.373/Ind/2016 4.6 The appellant has further stated that as per Form

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

35. Further in another judgment by CIT Vs. Umang Hiralal Thakur (2014) 42 taxmann.com 194 (Guj) is placed on the following paragraphs of its judgment. "In the present case, it is not the Assessing Officer's case that the appellant is not reporting or under reporting its income. In fact, I find in the subsequent assessment year, i.e. the assessment

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

Depreciation as per Income Tax 4 (41,52,794) 5 [3-4] (50,35,56,149) Income considered separately 6 Dividend income 21,91,060 Rent received 8,65,707 Diminution in value of shares 8,90,772 (39,47,539) 7 Profit and Gains from Business or (50,75,03,688) Profession [5-6] 10. From the above table

BALAJI PHOSPHATES LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCITACIT 1(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

Depreciation disallowed 12420517 Interest on Income Tax 549366 TDS not deducted on Advertisement 74250 TDS not deducted on office rent 61200 13110533 30772049 Page 107 Sl.No.23 of paper book 23. Any other item or items of addition Under section 28 to 44DA 684816 5.2 It appears that the CPC has made this addition in respect of advertisement and office