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

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: for example

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

Appeal is allowed

65,635 and Service tax of Rs.\n8,32,158, totalling Rs.10,62,939/-, thereby violating the provisions of section\n43B of the IT Act, 1961. Since this sum of Rs.10,62,939 had escaped\nassessment within the meaning of section 147, a notice u/s 148 was issued\nby the Assessing Officer on 20.03.2020 recording the following reasons:\n\"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

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

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

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

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 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

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 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

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 ACIT (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

65,000/- and claiming additional depreciation on newly installed plant and machinery. The Ld. AO selected case under scrutiny, issued statutory notices and finally completed assessment u/s 143(3) on 26.12.2018. Simultaneously on 26.12.2018, the Ld. AO issued notice u/s 274 read with section

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

depreciation of INR 4,68,65,805) in respect of the subsidies received from Government of Maharashtra under the Packaged Scheme of Incentives, 2007 by treating the same as revenue receipt. Page 1 of 27 Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 27 Prayer: The Appellant prays that the addition made by Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP be deleted

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