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

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

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

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

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Depreciation Espana SA Vs. ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Bangalore, IT(TA) No. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 order dated 10.08.2023 and the ITAT has categorically held that roaming charges are neither FTS or Royalty. The relevant paras of the order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Depreciation Espana SA Vs. ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Bangalore, IT(TA) No. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 order dated 10.08.2023 and the ITAT has categorically held that roaming charges are neither FTS or Royalty. The relevant paras of the order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Depreciation Espana SA Vs. ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Bangalore, IT(TA) No. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 order dated 10.08.2023 and the ITAT has categorically held that roaming charges are neither FTS or Royalty. The relevant paras of the order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT TDS, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Depreciation Espana SA Vs. ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Bangalore, IT(TA) No. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 order dated 10.08.2023 and the ITAT has categorically held that roaming charges are neither FTS or Royalty. The relevant paras of the order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT (TDS), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Cit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Bhopal Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) M/S Vodafone Idea Ltd. Dcit/Jcit (Tds), बनाम/ (Formerly M/S Idea Indore Vs. Cellular Ltd.), 139-140, Electronics Complex, Pardeshipura, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Depreciation Espana SA Vs. ACIT(IT)/DCIT(IT), Bangalore, IT(TA) No. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 order dated 10.08.2023 and the ITAT has categorically held that roaming charges are neither FTS or Royalty. The relevant paras of the order are extracted below: “3. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders passed by the Ld.AO for the years under consideration, assessee filed appeal

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

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

36 Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 non maintenance of regular books of accounts, violations of provisions of Sec.13(1)( c) of the Act in as much as the trustees were paid enormous salary are all by way of passing reference having norelevance to whether or not the Assessee was pursuing education as its main object. There

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

36 Shri Jairam Education Society ITA No.90 & 548/Ind/2019 non maintenance of regular books of accounts, violations of provisions of Sec.13(1)( c) of the Act in as much as the trustees were paid enormous salary are all by way of passing reference having norelevance to whether or not the Assessee was pursuing education as its main object. There

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

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

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 271(1)(c). (Ram Kumar Yadav) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Indore 19. From going through the above notice it is well evident that in the notice the specific charge/limb u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not mentioned. The Ld. A.O has not striked off one of the charge which is not relevant to the assessee