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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

63,469/- by treating the rental income of mall from house property u/s. 23 of the I.T. Act and no depreciation is allowable in respect of such income and after considering relevant facts of the case. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter the ground of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

63,469/- by treating the rental income of mall from house property u/s. 23 of the I.T. Act and no depreciation is allowable in respect of such income and after considering relevant facts of the case. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter the ground of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally

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

63 (1) 65(2) and proviso to Section 167 of the Act. As against this, there are other terms used in the different other sections, for example, in Section 81 (11) proviso, the decisions are to be taken by a majority of votes of the Councillors present and voting and at other places the word "Councillors" has been used

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

63,652/- 21,86,365/- Ltd 2 13-01-2012 FIL XEZ DTA Unit 20,68,106/- 206,811/- 3 26-03-2012 Satguru Polyfab Pvt. Ltd DTA Unit 150,51,853/- 15,05,185/- Total 389,83,611/- 38,98,361/- Since, assessee has purchased old and used plant & machinery and claimed additional depreciation for the same

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

depreciation for a sum of Rs.66,441 should be allowed in terms of sections 30 and 32 of the Act. The said contention was raised relying on or on the basis of a decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1989] 177 ITR 124. Disallowance under Section

THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PARAG FANS & COOLING SYSTEMS LTD., DEWAS

In the result appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

63,698/-. 17. Brief facts relating to this issue that as claimed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) with some brought forward losses of unabsorbed depreciation which the assessee has mentioned in the return of income and after claiming the same against the income for the year has shown as NIL income. However Ld. A.O while computing the assessee

THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PARAG FANS & COOLING SYSTEMS LTD., DEWAS

In the result appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

63,698/-. 17. Brief facts relating to this issue that as claimed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) with some brought forward losses of unabsorbed depreciation which the assessee has mentioned in the return of income and after claiming the same against the income for the year has shown as NIL income. However Ld. A.O while computing the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

63,431/- when the provision of section 14A was clearly applicable on assessee's investment in shares and mutual fund wherefrom income was exempt.” Page 2 of 17 Shri Rajeev Ajmera ITA No.51/Ind/2018& CO.No.23/Ind/2018 Assessment year 2010-11 Ground No. 1: 5. In this Ground, the issue involved is the deduction of commission- expenditure

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

GOPAL MUWEL,MANAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshigopal Muwel, Ito बनाम/ Morad, Manawar, Dhar Vs. Dhar (Pan: Caapm6256Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lucky Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

63,502/-which amount is well below the expenditure claimed u/s 57 amounting to Rs.57,86,200/- in the return of income. The Ld. AO in the “Impugned Assessment Order” has observed as follows:- (i) Provision of section 56(2)(ii) is reproduced (ii) Assessee has not offered the rental income under business head. The same is offered under

SHRI GOPAL KRISHNA SONI,MANDSAUR vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

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

63,554/- before claiming depreciation. 25. As regards Assessment Year 2002-03 total income of Rs.2,71,151/- was declared. Loss from business before claiming depreciation has been shown at Rs.11,71,113/-. This loss has been set off against surrendered amount at Rs.15,00,000/-. 26. Common facts arising out of the computation of income and financial statement

SHRI GOPAL KRISHNA SONI,MANDSAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX , RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

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

63,554/- before claiming depreciation. 25. As regards Assessment Year 2002-03 total income of Rs.2,71,151/- was declared. Loss from business before claiming depreciation has been shown at Rs.11,71,113/-. This loss has been set off against surrendered amount at Rs.15,00,000/-. 26. Common facts arising out of the computation of income and financial statement

SHRI GOPAL SONI,MANDSAUR vs. ADDLL. CIT , RATLAM

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

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

63,554/- before claiming depreciation. 25. As regards Assessment Year 2002-03 total income of Rs.2,71,151/- was declared. Loss from business before claiming depreciation has been shown at Rs.11,71,113/-. This loss has been set off against surrendered amount at Rs.15,00,000/-. 26. Common facts arising out of the computation of income and financial statement

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, CENTRAL-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

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

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

63,17,896/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO ultimately completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 29.12.2017 accepting the returned income. Thereafter, the PCIT-2, Bhopal passed revision-order dated 27.11.2019 directing the AO to make a fresh assessment for certain issues. In pursuance of such revision-order, the AO passed fresh assessment-order

SANJEEV JHA,SARWA SAMPAN NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NFAC, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Sanjeev Jha, Income-Tax Officer, 195, Sarwa Sampan Nfac, Nagar, Delhi बनाम/ Kanadia Road, Vs. Near Columbia Convent, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aeypj7626M Assessee By Shri H.N.Joshi, Ar Revenue By Shri K. Bala Murali Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

depreciation and claiming refund of Rs. 10,63,750/-. The case of assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason of high refund claim. The AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) from time to time which were complied with by assessee. During scrutiny-proceedings, the AO found that the assessee made a total purchase