DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

carry forward of losses. The assessee filed a copy of the assessment order for A.Y.2011-12 showing the loss of earlier year to the tune of Rs.2,55,25,774/- which was accepted by the AO as eligible for setting off. The AO again disallowed the statutory allowance of depreciation

MAHESH KHANDELWAL,INDORE vs. ADDL JCIT (A) -1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

DEPRECIATION\n-300223\n524683\nCOTTON BUSINESS (SPECULATION BUSINESS)\nLOSS ON SETTLEMENT\n-270000\n-270000\nNIL\n524683\nSPECULATION BUSINESS LOSS C/F Rs 270000\nINCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES\n3766\nINTEREST ON NSC\n3766\nTOTAL\n3766\n528449\nGROSS TOTAL INCOME\nLESS DEDUCTIONS UNDER CHAPTER-VIA\n80C DEDUCTION\n54413\n54413\nTOTAL DEDUCTIONS\nTOTAL INCOME\nTOTAL INCOME ROUNDED OFF U/S 288A\n474036\n474040\nAGRICULTURE

SHREEPAL HUMAD,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

loss or depreciation in the amount of disputed tax, or to carry forward the reduced tax credit or loss or depreciation

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

loss at Rs.39,38,283/- and unabsorbed depreciation at Rs.1,53,066/- to be carry forward for set up in subsequent

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

loss of Rs.1,81,15,601/- and claiming carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation at Rs. 1,55,95,905/-. In the P&L account

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

loss of Rs.1,81,15,601/- and claiming carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation at Rs. 1,55,95,905/-. In the P&L account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

loss of Rs.1,81,15,601/- and claiming carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation at Rs. 1,55,95,905/-. In the P&L account

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

loss of Rs.1,81,15,601/- and claiming carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation at Rs. 1,55,95,905/-. In the P&L account

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

forward the unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable as per the Explanation 4(b) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Having regard to the above and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

forward the unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable as per the Explanation 4(b) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Having regard to the above and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

carry forward and held for a subsequent year. An issue which is significant only for a particular year once decided cannot be held res judicata for a subsequent year. Thus, the view taken by Ld CIT(A) in one year cannot be implied to other assessment years. 4.1.3 In view of the above discussion, the AO firstly was not justified

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

carry forward and held for a subsequent year. An issue which is significant only for a particular year once decided cannot be held res judicata for a subsequent year. Thus, the view taken by Ld CIT(A) in one year cannot be implied to other assessment years. 4.1.3 In view of the above discussion, the AO firstly was not justified