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&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

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&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

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&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

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&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

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&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

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&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

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&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

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&

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not directing Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs.97,51,19,828/- on account of claim of investment allowance

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 for allowability of\ndepreciation are also satisfied. Thus, in principle, we agree that the assessee\nis entitled to deduction of depreciation u/s 32(1) for capital expenditure.\n15. In view of above discussion, we accept, in principle, that the assessee\nis entitled to 100% deduction of revenue expenses u/s 35(1)(i) and\nappropriate amount of depreciation

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

depreciation or good will is concerned. Nothing prevented the Ld. Pr.CIT to conduct enquires as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects [343 ITR 329], the relevant findings read as under: -\n\"Section 263 has been enacted to empower the CIT to exercise power of revision and revise any order passed

D.K CONSTRUCTION,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (3), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanid. K Construction Ito 2(3) E 2/21, Pandit Deeendayal Bhopal Complex, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .09.2024

4) and (5) of Section 158A totally and has considered only the following portion of Section 158A(1): “a declaration in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, that if the [Assessing] Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, agrees to apply the in the relevant case the final decision on the question

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

4), any income of the business\nundertaking determined by the ITO, in accordance with the\nprovisions of the Act, which is in excess of the income as shown in its\naccounts, is to be deemed to have been applied to purposes other\nthan charitable or religious, and hence it will be charged to tax\nunder sub-section (3). As only

PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,MHOW vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

section 80-IA of the Act. Considering the factual matrix of the issue, the appellant had withdrawn the incorrect claim of deduction u/s 80-IA to the extent of Rs. 2,21,48,480/- and revised deduction u/s 80-IA and furnished a fresh computation of income u/s 153A of the Act for AY 2014-15 wherein claim of deduction

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia))? e) intention of legislature for grant of benefit u/s 80-IA(4) as the main purpose of providing deduction under section

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DILIP BUILDCON LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia))? e) intention of legislature for grant of benefit u/s 80-IA(4) as the main purpose of providing deduction under section

BADAUD SHRI VARDHMAN SHIKSHA ,BADAUD vs. THE ITO NFAC DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 Badaud Shri Vardhaman Ito, बनाम/ Shiksha Samiti, Nfac, Badaud Delhi Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacab5370 Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

depreciation of Rs. 4,94,672/-, but thereafter neither the assessee has claimed set off in current year nor carried forward it to next year and the Total Income of Page 4 of 6 Badaud Shri Vardhman Shiksha Samiti, Badaud Assessment year 2018-19 assessee is Rs. Nil. We were anxious to understand as to how could it happen that

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

Appeals are allowed

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

4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The issue about levy of TDS U/s 194J on the roaming charges paid by the telecom operators to service providers and applicability of Section 194J has been considered in detail by this very Bench in the case of M/s Bharti Hexacom

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

Appeals are allowed

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

4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The issue about levy of TDS U/s 194J on the roaming charges paid by the telecom operators to service providers and applicability of Section 194J has been considered in detail by this very Bench in the case of M/s Bharti Hexacom