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

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

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as it stood upto A.Y. 2012-13, it is evident that the additional depreciation is permissible to all assessees who are engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. In the circumstances, the assessee who is desirous of claiming the additional depreciation need only to prove that

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

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

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 271(1)(c)." 5.12 Same view has been taken by the ITAT Indore wherein on similar facts regarding the claim of deduction ix] s 36(1)(viia) cancellation of penalty was upheld in the case of ACIT v / s Indore Premier Cooperative Bank in dated 06.10.2015. 5.13 In view of the above discussion the levy of penalty

M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 271(1)(c)." 5.12 Same view has been taken by the ITAT Indore wherein on similar facts regarding the claim of deduction ix] s 36(1)(viia) cancellation of penalty was upheld in the case of ACIT v / s Indore Premier Cooperative Bank in dated 06.10.2015. 5.13 In view of the above discussion the levy of penalty

M/S INDORE PARASPAR SAHKARI BANK LTD. ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2 (5) , INDORE

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

36,000/- was disallowed and added back to the income at Rs.45,66,540/- assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2012. Income accordingly assessed at Rs.62,02,540/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging the reopening of assessment as well as challenging the disallowance of depreciation but failed to get any relief

M/S. INDORE PARASPAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-I(I), INDORE

In the result this common issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant grounds raised in Assessment Year 2008-09 to Assessment Year 2012-13 in I

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

36,000/- was disallowed and added back to the income at Rs.45,66,540/- assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2012. Income accordingly assessed at Rs.62,02,540/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging the reopening of assessment as well as challenging the disallowance of depreciation but failed to get any relief

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 and part of 36

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

depreciation of Rs.9,93,337/- deleted by the ld. CIT(A), we confirm the disallowance only at Rs.93,578/- and partly allow ground no.5 and dismiss ground no.6 raised by the revenue. 17. Apropos to ground no.7 relating to disallowance of contribution to Provident Fund u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act at Rs. 2,80,643/- we find that

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

depreciation of Rs.9,93,337/- deleted by the ld. CIT(A), we confirm the disallowance only at Rs.93,578/- and partly allow ground no.5 and dismiss ground no.6 raised by the revenue. 17. Apropos to ground no.7 relating to disallowance of contribution to Provident Fund u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act at Rs. 2,80,643/- we find that

THE DCIT, 5(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. SANWARIA AGRO OILS LTD., BHOPAL

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

36,470 under normal computation and Rs.2,95,73,840 under section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction made by the assessee under section 80-IA amounting to Rs.1,70,76,945 on the ground that the eligible income was a negative figure. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

depreciation as per Income Tax there was net profit in Jodha unit and losses in the two units at Shajapur. In the return of income assessee did not made any claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4)of the Act. During the course of Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 assessment proceedings claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

depreciation as per Income Tax there was net profit in Jodha unit and losses in the two units at Shajapur. In the return of income assessee did not made any claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4)of the Act. During the course of Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 assessment proceedings claim