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

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dilip Buildcon Ltd. Acit Central-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent /Revenue) Pan: Aaccd 6124 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

depreciation under Sec.32AC of the Act are the following: (i) A new machinery or plant must be acquired and installed during FY 2013-14 (ii) The assessee who has acquired such new machinery or plant must be engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing or in the business generation or generation and distribution

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, NASHIK vs. MAHAKALESHWAR TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 123/Ind/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18)

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.4,05,75,163/- and allowed deduction of Rs.11,72,96,523/- by amortizing the cost incurred for developing the road over the period of 8445 days for which assessee was granted right to collect the toll. The AO has discussedthe issue in para

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

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

56,757 and also the depreciation actually allowed to the assessee in the past. We are unable to accept the submission. The Appellate Tribunal has categorically found that Atlanta Corporation is only a financier and when Atlanta Corporation wrote off the liability of the assessee, it cannot be said in retrospect that the cost of the assessee of any part

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL.,JT.,DY.,ASSTT.ITO, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Section 148 is issued.\"\nThe assesse objected to the said reopening of the assessment. However, an\norder of re-assessment was passed on 24th September 1990 determining the\ntotal income at Rs.23,56,523/-, whereby a sum of Rs.2,42,441/- (rent of Rs.\n1,76,000/- and depreciation

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

56,79,027/- on account of software services. The DRP confirmed the same. The Assessing Officer vide Assessment Order dated 05.02.2016 made addition of Rs.220,97,90,410/- towards upward adjustment on account of provision of Software Services and addition of Rs.6,07,00,658/- which is disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 2(1) , INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

56,79,027/- on account of software services. The DRP confirmed the same. The Assessing Officer vide Assessment Order dated 05.02.2016 made addition of Rs.220,97,90,410/- towards upward adjustment on account of provision of Software Services and addition of Rs.6,07,00,658/- which is disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved

M/S. COMPUTER SCIENCE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT-CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

56,79,027/- on account of software services. The DRP confirmed the same. The Assessing Officer vide Assessment Order dated 05.02.2016 made addition of Rs.220,97,90,410/- towards upward adjustment on account of provision of Software Services and addition of Rs.6,07,00,658/- which is disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. 4. Being aggrieved

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

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23(1)(a) of the Act may not be invoked in order to determine the annual taxable value of the assessee property and determine the same at Rs.50,000/- per month in each case of Mobile Tower. 25. However, the Ld. AO was ultimately formed an opinion that : ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23(1)(a) of the Act may not be invoked in order to determine the annual taxable value of the assessee property and determine the same at Rs.50,000/- per month in each case of Mobile Tower. 25. However, the Ld. AO was ultimately formed an opinion that : ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23(1)(a) of the Act may not be invoked in order to determine the annual taxable value of the assessee property and determine the same at Rs.50,000/- per month in each case of Mobile Tower. 25. However, the Ld. AO was ultimately formed an opinion that : ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers