M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable under the head

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1) RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable under the head

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable under the head

M/S. SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICES P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable under the head

M/S SHEETU EDUCATIONAL SERVICE PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 to 2010-11 are partly allowed as per our

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

65,769/- for depreciation on building, which was rented to M/s Jasleen Education Service Society, without consideration. The assessee has claimed depreciation, which is not allowable as the building has not been utilized for the business purpose of the assessee. Further the assessee has also not declared income from house property, income of which is taxable under the head

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

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

65,635 and Service tax of Rs. 8,32,158, totalling Rs.10,62,939/-, thereby violating the provisions of section 43B of the IT Act, 1961. Since this sum of Rs.10,62,939 had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147, a notice u/s 148 was issued by the Assessing Officer on 20.03.2020 recording the following reasons: "From

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

depreciation at Rs.1,53,066/- to be carry forward for set up in subsequent years. 3. After passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. Pr. CIT examined the assessment records and documents filed by the assessee and notice that the M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. assessment order is prima facie, erroneous and prejudicial

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)

65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) It is contended that the facts, circumstances and issues of appeals in question are similar to M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited judgment (supra). 3. The ld DR is heard, who supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. We have heard the rival contentions

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)

65 ITA No. 415/Ind/2014 & 265/Ind/2018 – AY 2010-11 M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Formerly M/s Idea Cellular Ltd.) It is contended that the facts, circumstances and issues of appeals in question are similar to M/s Bharti Hexacom Limited judgment (supra). 3. The ld DR is heard, who supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. We have heard the rival contentions

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

65,585 sq. ft. i.e. 35% of the usable floor area, the Ld. AO was of the opinion that the appellant is, therefore, entitled to the claim in respect of 35% of the depreciation expenses on proportionate basis and therefore, restricted the claim of depreciation of the appellant at Rs. 74,63,469/- in respect of income derived from business

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

65,585 sq. ft. i.e. 35% of the usable floor area, the Ld. AO was of the opinion that the appellant is, therefore, entitled to the claim in respect of 35% of the depreciation expenses on proportionate basis and therefore, restricted the claim of depreciation of the appellant at Rs. 74,63,469/- in respect of income derived from business

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

65,585 sq. ft. i.e. 35% of the usable floor area, the Ld. AO was of the opinion that the appellant is, therefore, entitled to the claim in respect of 35% of the depreciation expenses on proportionate basis and therefore, restricted the claim of depreciation of the appellant at Rs. 74,63,469/- in respect of income derived from business

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

65,585 sq. ft. i.e. 35% of the usable floor area, the Ld. AO was of the opinion that the appellant is, therefore, entitled to the claim in respect of 35% of the depreciation expenses on proportionate basis and therefore, restricted the claim of depreciation of the appellant at Rs. 74,63,469/- in respect of income derived from business

THE DY CIT1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

Section 43(1) of the Act. To that extent, the Appellant has also claimed less depreciation. If the contention of the AO is accepted, then at least, the Appellant is rightfully entitled to this additional depreciation. 7.7.5 From the above, it is clear that the SAC and the EC are one time charges from the customer, more in the nature

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

Section 43(1) of the Act. To that extent, the Appellant has also claimed less depreciation. If the contention of the AO is accepted, then at least, the Appellant is rightfully entitled to this additional depreciation. 7.7.5 From the above, it is clear that the SAC and the EC are one time charges from the customer, more in the nature

M.P.PASHCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO LTD,INDORE vs. THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

Section 43(1) of the Act. To that extent, the Appellant has also claimed less depreciation. If the contention of the AO is accepted, then at least, the Appellant is rightfully entitled to this additional depreciation. 7.7.5 From the above, it is clear that the SAC and the EC are one time charges from the customer, more in the nature

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

Section 43(1) of the Act. To that extent, the Appellant has also claimed less depreciation. If the contention of the AO is accepted, then at least, the Appellant is rightfully entitled to this additional depreciation. 7.7.5 From the above, it is clear that the SAC and the EC are one time charges from the customer, more in the nature

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

Section 43(1) of the Act. To that extent, the Appellant has also claimed less depreciation. If the contention of the AO is accepted, then at least, the Appellant is rightfully entitled to this additional depreciation. 7.7.5 From the above, it is clear that the SAC and the EC are one time charges from the customer, more in the nature