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

section 43(1). During current AY 2012-13 under consideration, Ld. AO followed his predecessor’s approach of AY 2007-08 and accordingly disallowed entire depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however

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

section 43(1). During current AY 2012-13 under consideration, Ld. AO followed his predecessor’s approach of AY 2007-08 and accordingly disallowed entire depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however

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

section 43(1). During current AY 2012-13 under consideration, Ld. AO followed his predecessor’s approach of AY 2007-08 and accordingly disallowed entire depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however

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

section 43(1). During current AY 2012-13 under consideration, Ld. AO followed his predecessor’s approach of AY 2007-08 and accordingly disallowed entire depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however

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

section 43(1). During current AY 2012-13 under consideration, Ld. AO followed his predecessor’s approach of AY 2007-08 and accordingly disallowed entire depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however

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

section 43(1). During current AY 2012-13 under consideration, Ld. AO followed his predecessor’s approach of AY 2007-08 and accordingly disallowed entire depreciation of Rs. 3,89,37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

66,510 Kalyan Marble & 2010-11 6,47,000 Granite Name of assessee A.Y. Amount Rs. Keti-T Construction 2010-11 72,81,800 Keti Sangam 2010-11 85,43,360 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2009-10 6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2007-08 3,80,020 Infrastructure 14. In view of our above findings wherein we have quashed

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

66,510 Kalyan Marble & 2010-11 6,47,000 Granite Name of assessee A.Y. Amount Rs. Keti-T Construction 2010-11 72,81,800 Keti Sangam 2010-11 85,43,360 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2009-10 6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2007-08 3,80,020 Infrastructure 14. In view of our above findings wherein we have quashed

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

66,510 Kalyan Marble & 2010-11 6,47,000 Granite Name of assessee A.Y. Amount Rs. Keti-T Construction 2010-11 72,81,800 Keti Sangam 2010-11 85,43,360 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2009-10 6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2007-08 3,80,020 Infrastructure 14. In view of our above findings wherein we have quashed

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

section 12AA(3) & 12AA(4) of the Act only on the basis of invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s 12AA of the Act which in our view was not correct since only the amount of benefit of exemption can be a subject matter but continuing of registration u/s 12AA

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 271(1)(c). (Ram Kumar Yadav) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Indore 19. From going through the above notice it is well evident that in the notice the specific charge/limb u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not mentioned. The Ld. A.O has not striked off one of the charge which is not relevant to the assessee

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 271(1)(c). (Ram Kumar Yadav) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Indore 19. From going through the above notice it is well evident that in the notice the specific charge/limb u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not mentioned. The Ld. A.O has not striked off one of the charge which is not relevant to the assessee

SHIVANI LOGISTICS,INDORE vs. DCIT CPC , BANGALURU

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

disallowance of Rs. 1,66,621/- and Rs. 2,500/- on account of bonus expenditure and professional tax respectively. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal and now before us. GROUNDS: 3. The assessee has raised following grounds: “1. That the order passed by learned

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

66 (SC) Whether in order to invoke section 263 Assessing Officer’s order must be erroneous and also prejudicial to revenue and if one of them is absent, i.e. if order of income-tax officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to revenue, recourse cannot be had to section

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.Y.’) 2011-12 with the following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition