M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

7) to (12) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply to the eligible business under this section22." 11. Sub section(5) of section 80lA reads as under: "(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

7) to (12) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply to the eligible business under this section22." 11. Sub section(5) of section 80lA reads as under: "(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

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

7) to (12) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply to the eligible business under this section22." 11. Sub section(5) of section 80lA reads as under: "(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall

BADAUD SHRI VARDHMAN SHIKSHA ,BADAUD vs. THE ITO NFAC DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 Badaud Shri Vardhaman Ito, बनाम/ Shiksha Samiti, Nfac, Badaud Delhi Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacab5370 Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

7. In nutshell, by carrying us through the returns of AY 2018-19 and 2019-20, Ld. AR tried to establish that though the assessee has furnished loss of Rs. 6,28,061/- under “Income from Other Sources” at Page No. 41 of ITR (which includes the disallowed depreciation of Rs. 4,93,672/-as well) but that loss

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs. 7

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs. 7

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs. 7

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs. 7

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs. 7

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

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

section 10(38). (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 2. Addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified. That addition of Rs. 7,43,099/- on account of loss in trading in shares of VAS Infra is unjustified and improper. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs. 7

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

94,03,355) Depreciation as per Income Tax 4 (41,52,794) 5 [3-4] (50,35,56,149) Income considered separately 6 Dividend income 21,91,060 Rent received 8,65,707 Diminution in value of shares 8,90,772 (39,47,539) 7 Profit and Gains from Business or (50,75,03,688) Profession [5-6] 10. From

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

depreciation at Rs.1,53,066/- to be carry forward for set up in subsequent years. 3. After passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, Ld. Pr. CIT examined the assessment records and documents filed by the assessee and notice that the M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. assessment order is prima facie, erroneous and prejudicial

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

94,980/-. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO) called for various informations including explanation for unsecured loans taken during the year. Detailed submissions were filed. Ld. AO also examined the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, delay

SHRI SANJAY SHUKLA ,INDORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL-CIRLE-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Sanjay Shukla, Acit Central Circle 2, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessment Year:2013-14 Acit Central Circle 2, Shri Sanjay Shukla, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Ahqps8882D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03..2022 आदेश / O R D E R

94,980/-. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO) called for various informations including explanation for unsecured loans taken during the year. Detailed submissions were filed. Ld. AO also examined the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, delay

ASIAN BUSINESS CONECTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. DCIT - 1(1) , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16 M/S. Asian Business Dcit-1(1), Connections Private Ltd, Vs. Bhopal Fm-18, Man Sarovar Complex, 7No. Stop, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaica1206D

94 taxmann.com 244 (Calcutta) (HC) 4. Chadrasekhar Maruti v ACIT [2016] 71 taxmann.com 239 (Mumbai ITAT) 5. M. Amareswara Rao v DCIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 15 (Vishakhapatnam ITAT) 6. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Farida Holding (P) Ltdn(2016) (76 Taxmann.com 10) 7. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai V Madurai Chettiyar Karthikeyan (2014) 45 taxmann.com 274 8. Assistant Commissioner

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.” Thus, the words “Income chargeable to tax” are of prime importance to the section 147. However, it can be seen from the reasons as reproduced above that the Assessing Officer did not mention the words “Income chargeable to tax” in the reasons which