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

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 has also interpreted

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

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 has also interpreted

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

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 has also interpreted

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

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 has also interpreted

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

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 has also interpreted

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

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 has also interpreted

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

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.7,30,26,302/- made by disallowing the depreciation u/s.32 of the Act. Hence

MALWA OXYGEN AND INDUSTRIAL GASES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECTOR C, INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. AO-RATLAM/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, RATLAM/DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section\n35(2AB) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the disallowed capital Research\nand development expenses be capitalised and consequent depreciation be\ndirected to be allowed.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A)\nerred in not allowing the consequent deductions and allowances permissible\nunder the Act and assessing the correct

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

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 the\nrelevant assessment year).\"\n4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of\nthe Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment

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 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. The assessee has raised following additional ground: “That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, MEGHNAGAR DIST. JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

36 vehicles (trucks) and claimed full depreciation in respect of 15 vehicles and 50% depreciation on the remaining 21 vehicles. The AO noted that the assessee could not give any evidence in respect of the days for which the vehicles were put to use in the absence of books of account. The assesse did not produce books of account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM, RATLAM vs. SHRI SURESH CHAND JAIN, JHABUA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & Acit 5(1) Shri Suresh Chand Jain Indore 99, Thandla Road, Vs. Meghnagar,Jhabua (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan:Aezpj 2697F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .09.2023

36 vehicles (trucks) and claimed full depreciation in respect of 15 vehicles and 50% depreciation on the remaining 21 vehicles. The AO noted that the assessee could not give any evidence in respect of the days for which the vehicles were put to use in the absence of books of account. The assesse did not produce books of account

M/S. GREATER KAILASH HOSPITAL (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, being not maintainable is

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation as allowable under section 32 of the Act of Rs. 2,62,09,454/- 4. The appellant reserves its right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by it” Application of the assessee for condonation of delay in the Tribunal and for admission of new/additional grounds of appeal dated 18.11.2022: 3. The ld. Representative

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

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 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 the\nrelevant assessment year).\"\nIt is submitted that \"Reasons to Believe\" that income chargeable to tax has escaped\nassessment is one of the conditions precedent for reopening of assessment

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

36. Page 1 of 5 Saiphia Tecnology Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 172/Ind/2024 – AY 2015-16 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-company filed return of income declaring a total income of (-) Rs. 63,17,896/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO ultimately completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated

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 on software, and (v) disallowance u/s 14A. With such disallowances/additions, the AO proposed to determine total income at Rs. 65,98,26,453/-. Against draft- assessment order, the assessee filed objection dated 28.01.2011 to Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP passed order dated 08.09.2011 u/s 144C(5) of the act whereby the objections of assessee were turned down

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

36. Further the co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Vraj Developers passed in ITA No.19/AHD/2008 which attained finality as it is not challenged by the department before the high forum observed as follows; "The learned Departmental representative supported the order of the learned Assessing Officer and the learned authorized representative of the assessee supported the order