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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DXC TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

66,59,110/-. The case was\nselected for scrutiny and the notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued which\nwere complied by assessee. During scrutiny-proceeding, the AO found that\nthe assessee has claimed tax-free dividend of Rs.33,93,37,816/- but made\nsuo moto disallowance of Rs.31,97,455/- only u/s 14A for the expenses\nincurred

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, 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

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, 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

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

section 92CA(3) & 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2007-08, the assessee has filed this appeal. Page 1 of 47 Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Chennai Assessment year 2007-08 2. This appeal was originally filed at Chennai Bench of ITAT on 10.10.2011 and registered as ITA No. 1654/CHNY/2011. The ITAT, Chennai

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

66,261/- u/s 69C has overlooking the findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment order. The ld.CIT-DR also pointed out that the ld. AO, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, made disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation entry received by the assessee through shell entities and has also paid commission to the intermediaries @ 1

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

66,261/- u/s 69C has overlooking the findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment order. The ld.CIT-DR also pointed out that the ld. AO, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, made disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation entry received by the assessee through shell entities and has also paid commission to the intermediaries @ 1

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

66,261/- u/s 69C has overlooking the findings of the AO recorded in the Assessment order. The ld.CIT-DR also pointed out that the ld. AO, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, made disallowance u/s 68 of the Act pertaining to accommodation entry received by the assessee through shell entities and has also paid commission to the intermediaries @ 1