THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowing entire deprecation claimed by appellant and secondly not justified in estimating NP @ 5%. Thus, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,04,60,184/- is Deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 18. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the facts discussed above squarely establish that

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO.,INDIRA NAGAR vs. DCIT, DCIT-CPC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshirng Construction Co. Dcit बनाम/ 14, Sector-A, Vs. Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqfr9084B Assessee By Shri Yashwant Sharma, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2025

172 taxmann.com 611 (Delhi – Trib.) order dated 27.01.2025: “3.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that no adjustment can be made u/s 143(1) of the Act when issue is debatable. The disallowance made u/s 43B of the Act on account of GST payable is not a prima facie adjustment; rather the same is a debatable issue since

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

disallowances or any valuable article or things , money , jewellery, documents or papers found / or seized during the search operation. Such amount has been derived from our business activity. Accordingly, we will declare the amount/income in respective assessee` s return for the respective years as per and subject to deduction available under the provisions of Income Tax Act. Further, in continuation

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10

disallowances or any valuable article or things , money , jewellery, documents or papers found / or seized during the search operation. Such amount has been derived from our business activity. Accordingly, we will declare the amount/income in respective assessee` s return for the respective years as per and subject to deduction available under the provisions of Income Tax Act. Further, in continuation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

172 Sharma 882 8 Nirmal 1725 6,82,500 187- 60,375 2,93,250 170 228 Rajendra 188 Tiwari 986 9 Anil Malik 2100 4,00,000 200 73,500 3,26,500 155.48 228 391 10 Amit 2100 2,45,000 43 73,500 1,71,500 81.67 228 Shantilal 216 345 Total

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

172 Sharma 882 8 Nirmal 1725 6,82,500 187- 60,375 2,93,250 170 228 Rajendra 188 Tiwari 986 9 Anil Malik 2100 4,00,000 200 73,500 3,26,500 155.48 228 391 10 Amit 2100 2,45,000 43 73,500 1,71,500 81.67 228 Shantilal 216 345 Total

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

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

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available

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

4. Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2 for the assessment years 2005- 06, 2006-07 and assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to approving the reopening of assessment based on findings given in set aside orders u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had filed

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

4. Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2 for the assessment years 2005- 06, 2006-07 and assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to approving the reopening of assessment based on findings given in set aside orders u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had filed

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

4. Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2 for the assessment years 2005- 06, 2006-07 and assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to approving the reopening of assessment based on findings given in set aside orders u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had filed

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

4. Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2 for the assessment years 2005- 06, 2006-07 and assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to approving the reopening of assessment based on findings given in set aside orders u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had filed

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

4. Ground Nos. 1.1 to 1.2 for the assessment years 2005- 06, 2006-07 and assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11 relate to approving the reopening of assessment based on findings given in set aside orders u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had filed

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. DY. CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2012-13

4 of section 271 of the Act with prospective effect, it is now a settled position that prior to 1/4/2016, where the income tax payable on the total income as computed under the normal provisions of the Act is less Flexituff International Ltd. ITANo.512/Ind/2019 than the tax payable on the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, then penalty under

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

disallowance of claim of additional depreciation under section 32 (1) (iia) of the Act of Rs.1, 20, 20, 000/-. 4.That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in maintaining Levy of interest under section 234B without VAT invoice special provisions of section 234B applicable in the facts of the case. 2. Ground No. 1 and 2 of appeal relates challenging the initiation