DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

37,77,768/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2015-16: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

37,77,768/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2015-16: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

THED CIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S DILIP BUILDCON LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

37,77,768/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2015-16: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

DILIP BUILDCON LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

37,77,768/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2015-16: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

37,77,768/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2015-16: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

37,77,768/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2015-16: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

37,77,768/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2015-16: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SHRI DILIP BUILDCON LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL

In the result, revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad&

37,77,768/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for A.Y.2015-16: The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

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

4)\nCIT(A)\n(5)\nDepartmental Representative\n(6)\nGuard File\nBy order\nSr. Private Secretary\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal\nIndore Bench, Indore", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee claimed a weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for expenses incurred on scientific research. However, they failed to furnish the mandatory Form 3CL. Subsequently, the assessee withdrew the claim under Section

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

37. Therefore, under Section 54(F) was to be withdrawn and the gross receipt was to be treated as an income from other source. 38. The respective petitioners have also replied to the same to their Chartered Accountant on 26.02.2021 stating that the Impugned Notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction inasmuch