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

50,946/- being prior period expenses. That these expenses being incurred and crystallized during the year, the same required to be allowed. Revenue’s ITA No. 784/Ind/2019 for AY 2013-14: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance on account of depreciation on plant

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

50,946/- being prior period expenses. That these expenses being incurred and crystallized during the year, the same required to be allowed. Revenue’s ITA No. 784/Ind/2019 for AY 2013-14: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance on account of depreciation on plant

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

50,946/- being prior period expenses. That these expenses being incurred and crystallized during the year, the same required to be allowed. Revenue’s ITA No. 784/Ind/2019 for AY 2013-14: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance on account of depreciation on plant

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

50,946/- being prior period expenses. That these expenses being incurred and crystallized during the year, the same required to be allowed. Revenue’s ITA No. 784/Ind/2019 for AY 2013-14: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance on account of depreciation on plant

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

50,946/- being prior period expenses. That these expenses being incurred and crystallized during the year, the same required to be allowed. Revenue’s ITA No. 784/Ind/2019 for AY 2013-14: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance on account of depreciation on plant

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

50,946/- being prior period expenses. That these expenses being incurred and crystallized during the year, the same required to be allowed. Revenue’s ITA No. 784/Ind/2019 for AY 2013-14: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance on account of depreciation on plant

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

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

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 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

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA

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

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA

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

1 above and on the facts and circumstances\nof the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the\ncapitalisation of disallowed capital expenditure claimed under section\n35(2AB) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the disallowed capital Research\nand development expenses be capitalised and consequent depreciation be\ndirected to be allowed

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) 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

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

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

section 263 cannot be invoked by the Pro CIT. 2 M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. 5.That Explanation 2 to S. 263 inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 does not override the law as interpreted by the various High Courts whereby it is held that the CIT cannot treat the AO's order as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue without

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