M/S MOIRA STEEL LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2007-08 M/S. Moira Steel Ltd, Dcit-1(1), 103, Laxmi Tower, Vs. Indore 576, M.G. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aabcm2051K Revenue By Shri K.G. Goel, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri V.P. Rawka, Ca Date Of Hearing 10.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.05.2019 O R D E R

carried forward losses. Case selected for scrutiny assessment followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1)(ii) of the Act. Ld. A.O noticed that during the year assessee received share application money of Rs.50,00,000/- from two companies namely Rolled Gold Industries Ltd (Rs. 20,00,000/-) and BPO Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd (Rs.30

ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S ESSENCE COMMODITIES P LTD, INDORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Forward Market Commission (FMC) which was set up by the Central Government to make close interaction with commodity exchanges. The learned counsel submitted that it is impossible to know the name of the counterparty broker from whom commodities were purchased or sold. Entire transaction is settled by banking channel through commodity exchange. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was right

ACIT (CENTRAL)-1 INDORE, INDORE vs. ESSENCE COMMODITIES (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Forward Market Commission (FMC) which was set up by the Central Government to make close interaction with commodity exchanges. The learned counsel submitted that it is impossible to know the name of the counterparty broker from whom commodities were purchased or sold. Entire transaction is settled by banking channel through commodity exchange. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was right

SAPAN SHAH,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(I), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such activity as business activity. He traded in various shares including shares of VAS Infra incurred loss in some shares and earned profit in other shares. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 3. Addition is based on wrong representation of facts of the case. That the learned AO has wrongly presented the facts

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such activity as business activity. He traded in various shares including shares of VAS Infra incurred loss in some shares and earned profit in other shares. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 3. Addition is based on wrong representation of facts of the case. That the learned AO has wrongly presented the facts

MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such activity as business activity. He traded in various shares including shares of VAS Infra incurred loss in some shares and earned profit in other shares. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 3. Addition is based on wrong representation of facts of the case. That the learned AO has wrongly presented the facts

PRAYANK JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such activity as business activity. He traded in various shares including shares of VAS Infra incurred loss in some shares and earned profit in other shares. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 3. Addition is based on wrong representation of facts of the case. That the learned AO has wrongly presented the facts

DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA,INDORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE5(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such activity as business activity. He traded in various shares including shares of VAS Infra incurred loss in some shares and earned profit in other shares. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 3. Addition is based on wrong representation of facts of the case. That the learned AO has wrongly presented the facts

GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF,INDORE vs. I T O 2(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

carrying on business of dealing in shares treating such activity as business activity. He traded in various shares including shares of VAS Infra incurred loss in some shares and earned profit in other shares. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 3. Addition is based on wrong representation of facts of the case. That the learned AO has wrongly presented the facts

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

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

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

losses by the beneficiaries. In reply to question No.8, the modus-operandi of bogus LCTG / STCL entry obtained by the beneficiary was explained. However, the same is general elaboration and do not taint the transactions carried out by the assessee-huf. Regarding role of Shri Anil Agarwal, it was submitted that he introduced the directors of FFSL and Rutron International

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

losses by the beneficiaries. In reply to question No.8, the modus-operandi of bogus LCTG / STCL entry obtained by the beneficiary was explained. However, the same is general elaboration and do not taint the transactions carried out by the assessee-huf. Regarding role of Shri Anil Agarwal, it was submitted that he introduced the directors of FFSL and Rutron International

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

losses by the beneficiaries. In reply to question No.8, the modus-operandi of bogus LCTG / STCL entry obtained by the beneficiary was explained. However, the same is general elaboration and do not taint the transactions carried out by the assessee-huf. Regarding role of Shri Anil Agarwal, it was submitted that he introduced the directors of FFSL and Rutron International

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

losses by the beneficiaries. In reply to question No.8, the modus-operandi of bogus LCTG / STCL entry obtained by the beneficiary was explained. However, the same is general elaboration and do not taint the transactions carried out by the assessee-huf. Regarding role of Shri Anil Agarwal, it was submitted that he introduced the directors of FFSL and Rutron International

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

loss account and accompanying documents, which fact is also stated by the AO on page 4 of the assessment order 4.3.5 The AO has discussed the audit report of M/s Dhankuber Exports Pvt. Lid at length in the assessment order and the turnover of this entity in stated to be 278.02 crores and the total purchase is stated

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

loss account and accompanying documents, which fact is also stated by the AO on page 4 of the assessment order 4.3.5 The AO has discussed the audit report of M/s Dhankuber Exports Pvt. Lid at length in the assessment order and the turnover of this entity in stated to be 278.02 crores and the total purchase is stated