THE ITO, (EXEMPTION), INDORE vs. M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

loss from one year to another year because they could not be set off against any income at the income in succeeding year is also exempt. The Ld. CIT(A) as also distinguished the case laws relied by the assessee in the case of Gujrati Samaj of Hon'ble MP High Court 204 Taxman 151 by observing that these cases

M/S. N.T.THOMAS MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena1.आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 139/Ind/2015 2. I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-12

loss from one year to another year because they could not be set off against any income at the income in succeeding year is also exempt. The Ld. CIT(A) as also distinguished the case laws relied by the assessee in the case of Gujrati Samaj of Hon'ble MP High Court 204 Taxman 151 by observing that these cases

S.R.DIGITAL AND BROADBAND PVT.LTD. ,INDORE vs. PCIT(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 S.R. Digital Tv & Pcit, Broadband Private Indore बनाम/ Limited, 335 Orbit Mall, A. B.Road, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aavcs1165L Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, C.A. Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

TDS. Therefore, the issue of carry forward of losses was beyond the scope of scrutiny conducted by AO. Ld. AR submitted

SHRI YOGESH HOTWANI,MANDSAUR vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

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

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

carry forward cash balance from the preceding day to the next day and each day balance recorded on seized papers matching. The CIT(A) has held that there is no I.T.(SS)A.Nos. 91 – 94 & I.T.A.No. 274/Ind/2016 and 117 to 120 and I.T.A.No. 680/Ind/2016 – ACIT v. Yogesh Hotwani and Yogesh Hotwani Vs. DCIT page 29 of 72 justification and merit

THE ACIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI YOGESH KUMAR HOTWANI, MANDSAUR

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

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

carry forward cash balance from the preceding day to the next day and each day balance recorded on seized papers matching. The CIT(A) has held that there is no I.T.(SS)A.Nos. 91 – 94 & I.T.A.No. 274/Ind/2016 and 117 to 120 and I.T.A.No. 680/Ind/2016 – ACIT v. Yogesh Hotwani and Yogesh Hotwani Vs. DCIT page 29 of 72 justification and merit

DANISH HEALTH CARE P LTD ,UJJAIN vs. PR CIT -1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Danish Health Care Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76/27, Maxi Road, Industrial Area, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaecd5554F Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Negi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

forward losses are mentioned. Ld. AR submitted that these details were held on the departmental record. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that the impugned sheet merely exhibits the figures of losses but the AO’s duty was to enquire into the same and verify, which has not been done. On a careful consideration, we find that although the figures

THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PARAG FANS & COOLING SYSTEMS LTD., DEWAS

In the result appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

carry forward if any. 18. We on perusal of record find that computation of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 is not placed on record. The return of income of preceding years from which the business losses and unabsorbed depreciation loss are being brought forward are also not placed on record. No specific finding is given in this regard

THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S PARAG FANS & COOLING SYSTEMS LTD., DEWAS

In the result appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

carry forward if any. 18. We on perusal of record find that computation of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 is not placed on record. The return of income of preceding years from which the business losses and unabsorbed depreciation loss are being brought forward are also not placed on record. No specific finding is given in this regard

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

carried forward as the cost of WIP. 2.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was explained to the Learned AO that the appellant has claimed the interest expenditure as revenue expenditure in the immediately preceding year ie. AY 2012-2013 and in the current year the appellant has capitalized the finance cost as a part of project cost under

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

carried forward as the cost of WIP. 2.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was explained to the Learned AO that the appellant has claimed the interest expenditure as revenue expenditure in the immediately preceding year ie. AY 2012-2013 and in the current year the appellant has capitalized the finance cost as a part of project cost under

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

carried forward as the cost of WIP. 2.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was explained to the Learned AO that the appellant has claimed the interest expenditure as revenue expenditure in the immediately preceding year ie. AY 2012-2013 and in the current year the appellant has capitalized the finance cost as a part of project cost under

RECONNECT ENERGY SOLUTION P LT,BENGALURU vs. THE DCIT 4(1) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoreconnect Energy Solution Ltd. Dcit 1(4) No.22, Vk Kalyani, 7Th Floor Indore Vs. Sankey Road, Bengaluru (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aafcr 0074 H Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2023

loss of Rs.40,74,828/-. The Case of the assessee was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny in respect of high ratio of refund of TDS, large share premium received during the year and mismatch in sales turnover. During the year the assesse has received share premium of Rs.13,17,080/-. On query the assessee explained that during the year

ACIT CENTTRAL -2 INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, INDORE

Accordingly ground no. 2 of the cross objection stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit Central-2, M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Indore Ltd., Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aacck1840M

carried forward amount of the previous year does not become an investment or cash credit generated during the relevant year 1993-94. This alone is sufficient to sustain the order of the Tribunal in deleting the amount from the assessment for asst. yr. 1993-94. 11. In light of the facts reiterated above and after going through the findings

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

forwarded the said letter to the AO for information. Considering the fact that the appellant has suffered losses on trades on NMCE through brokers S. N. Commodities and Shubhlaxmi Commodities the appellant was required to file confirmed copy of accounts from both the brokers and to explain as to why the loss should not be disallowed. The submission filed

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

forwarded the said letter to the AO for information. Considering the fact that the appellant has suffered losses on trades on NMCE through brokers S. N. Commodities and Shubhlaxmi Commodities the appellant was required to file confirmed copy of accounts from both the brokers and to explain as to why the loss should not be disallowed. The submission filed

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

forwarded the said letter to the AO for information. Considering the fact that the appellant has suffered losses on trades on NMCE through brokers S. N. Commodities and Shubhlaxmi Commodities the appellant was required to file confirmed copy of accounts from both the brokers and to explain as to why the loss should not be disallowed. The submission filed

SMT. SHWETA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PR. CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

Loss account of M/s Samarath Impex along with the copy of Ledger A/c of Commission & Brokerage in the books of accounts of the assessee is enclosed for your kind reference. 8) Detail of the TDS as deducted by various parties in the year under consideration along with the reconciliation of Form 26AS with the books of accounts of the assessee

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

TDS made on interest paid to the parties. It was, therefore, submitted that the assessee firm duly discharged its onus that the loan was genuinely accepted through banking channel from the companies and discharged its onus to prove the transaction. It was argued that merely because the directors of the company could not be produced by the assessee, it cannot