THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

section 47(vi) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot take amount of capital asset different from amalgamating companies because the transactions would not be treated as transfer and cost of asset as to be same in case of successor. The depreciation is allowable only on written down value of block assets considering actual cost and any asset which

RAJ KUMAR PALIA,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - ITARSI, CAMP AT BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2009-10 Raj Kumar Paliya Dcit/Acit M/S. Da Construction

depreciation but restricted disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) to 30% of Rs. 2,16,333/- taking into account the subsequent clarificatory amendment made by Govt. in section

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. The claim of deduction u/s Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 80IB in respect of the two eligible units viz. 'Spandhana' and 'Samruddhi' of Rs.2,23,22,237/- is obviously less than the gross total income. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer as well as the Id. CIT(A) erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (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. The claim of deduction u/s Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 80IB in respect of the two eligible units viz. 'Spandhana' and 'Samruddhi' of Rs.2,23,22,237/- is obviously less than the gross total income. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer as well as the Id. CIT(A) erred

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. The claim of deduction u/s Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 80IB in respect of the two eligible units viz. 'Spandhana' and 'Samruddhi' of Rs.2,23,22,237/- is obviously less than the gross total income. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer as well as the Id. CIT(A) erred

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

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

depreciation. The claim of deduction u/s Agrawal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd ITA No.801 to 803/Ind/2018, ITA No.778/Ind/2018 & CO Nos.23 &24/Ind/2019 80IB in respect of the two eligible units viz. 'Spandhana' and 'Samruddhi' of Rs.2,23,22,237/- is obviously less than the gross total income. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer as well as the Id. CIT(A) erred

M/S. BHANDARI HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Depreciation on PET CT SCAN at Rs.1,61,00,262/- has been claimed at higher rate of 40% instead of 15% which has been allowed by the AO without any enquiry. [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] L. the AO has allowed salary paid amounting to Rs.4,75,90,791/- without verifying whether TDS as per provisions of the Income

ACIT 5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SHIV OFFSET INDIA (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. Shiv Offset India Income Tax-5(1), Indore Vs. Pvt. Ltd, 73, Polo Ground, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaics4399B Revenue By Shri Asish Porwal, Sr.Dr Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Date Of Hearing 14.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 14.09.2020 O R D E R

40% instead of 15% on the ground that higher rate of depreciation was claimed by the assessee because the company is engaged in the offset printing business. Accordingly a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee and in response the assessee furnished its return of income under protest. The assessee asked copy of reasons recorded

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

40,10,826/-. Subsequently Ld. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act perused the records and observed that the order passed by Ld. A.O u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.3.2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the 2 Flexituff International Ltd interest of revenue because it was made without proper enquiry, non application

M/S A-ONE ENCLAVE,UJJAIN vs. THE PR.CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

depreciation has to be incurred which resulted loss during the year. 4. Disallowance of Remuneration paid to partners:- On the perusal of computation of income, it is found that the assessee firm has claimed deduction for remuneration to the partners amounting to Rs.9,00,000/-. The assessee was asked to explain the justification of claiming such higher remuneration while there

M/S. SHREE VIGNESH WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DY CIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vighnesh Warehouse Dcit, Cpc & Distributors Private Bangaluru बनाम/ Limited Vs. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue)

depreciation and capital gain as per section 50 read with section 32 of Income-tax Act, 1961 is given, according to which the cost of the block of asset comprising of the impugned building was Rs. 58,03,857/- against the sale price of Rs. 71,00,000/- and the resultant short-term capital gain taxable

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

depreciation in preceding AY 2014-15, the identical claim even if not allowed in current AY 2015-16, cannot be said to be a case of “furnishing of inaccurate particulars”. We have no hesitation in agreeing with this submission of Ld. AR. The Ld. DR for revenue, though dutifully supported the order of AO, yet could not rebut the pleading

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 on extra cost of construction added by him as per report of DVO.” Additional ground by assessee: “That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 47,52,500/- made by AO invoking provisions of section 69C on account of alleged unexplained expenditure vide para 11.6 of order of assessment.” 3. Heard the learned representatives of both

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment