M/S BINDRA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2008-09 Bindra Warehousing Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Corporation, Itarsi

depreciation and imposing the tax on the same which is neither correct nor justified therefore same is liable to be deleted. However, prior to arguing the same, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Mishra, would plead for admission of legal Grounds (Gds. 3 & 4), reading as under, also praying for their adjudication first inasmuch as the acceptance thereof, where

M/S AMBIKA TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (5) The provisions of sections 44AA and 44AB shall not apply in so far as they relate to the business referred to in sub-section (1) and in computing the monetary limits under those sections, the gross receipts or, as the case may be, the income

M/S AMBIKA TRANSPORT CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (5) The provisions of sections 44AA and 44AB shall not apply in so far as they relate to the business referred to in sub-section (1) and in computing the monetary limits under those sections, the gross receipts or, as the case may be, the income

ASHWANI KUMAR SEHGAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATNI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleashwani Kumar Sehgal Vs. Ito-1. M/S. Sehgal Industries, Katni-483501, Madhav Nagar Gate, Madhyapradesh. Katni-483501, Madhyapradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ajgps0132E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Sapanusrethe, Advocate.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shivkumar. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Cit(A) A Passed U/Sec 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

business running on Hire. The AO dealt on the facts and CBDT circular and observed that Ashwani Kumar Sehgal, Jabalpur. the assessee is entitled for the depreciation@15% on the WDV. Whereas the assessee has claimed the higher rate of deprecation and made disallowance of excess claim of depreciation of Rs. 89,108/- and assessed the total income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHHINDWARA vs. M/S. CENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK, CHHINDWARA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

income from profits and gains of business or profession. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires- (1) “actual cost” means the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority: Provided

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. ANAND MINING CORPORATION, JABALPUR

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

depreciation and find no error in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Therefore, we find no merit in ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal. 12. Ground No. 3 is regarding allowing the relief of Rs.1,01,612/- out of total disallowance of Rs.1,21,807/- made by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1 (1), JABALPUR vs. M/S. RAJLUXMI ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NARSHINGPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is disposed of on the above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) dated 20/12/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The assessee-company, in the business of civil construction, was in the course of assessment proceedings for the relevant year found to have claimed an opening Written Down Value (WDV) of it’s block of assets (for the purpose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S. MAHAKAUSHAL SUGAR & POWER INDUSTRIES LTD., NARSINGHPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

depreciation thereon stands claimed, albeit for and under the sugar division. We, accordingly, find no reason for the denial of the eligibility for deduction u/s. 80-IA on the profit derived from power generation, captively consumed by it’s sugar division. We are to this extent in agreement with the ld. CIT(A). The same, however, only decides the aspect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR vs. M/S. JABALPUR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTER, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Vs. Jabalpur Hospital & Central Circle, Researchcentre,Pvtltd Ramnath Russel Crossing, Building,Napier Town, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001 Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent Co.No.04/Jab/2019 (A.Y. 2016-17) (In Ita No.19/Jab/2019) Jabalpur Hospital & Vs. Dcit, Research Centre Pvt Ltd, Central Circle, Russel Crossing, Ramnath Napier Town, Building,Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001. Jabalpur-482001. Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcj1959K Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation is allowable as per rate prescribed. The items mentioned in the details of fixed assets cannot form part of taxable income as per the accounting principle. The A.O. can make addition only when the fixed assets has been purchased out of the unaccounted investment. A.O can only make addition in respect of consumables treating the same as unaccounted stock

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,KOTMA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE,KATNI, KATNI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

income (PB pgs.16-32), Sh. Usrethe, the ld. counsel for the assessee, would exhibit that there is in fact no difference between the closing WDV for the immediately preceding year (31/03/2015) and the opening WDV (on 01/04/2015) for the current year (AY 2016-17). The figures for both of them, at a total