JHABUA DHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT, RATLAM, RATLAM

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Jhabua Dhar Kshetriya Acit/Dcit, Gramin Bank, Ratlam 204, C-21, Business Park, बनाम/ Opp. Hotel Radisson Blu, Mr-10, Vs. Indore

forward of loss which is allowable to the assessee.” 2. Ld. AR for assessee carried us to the grounds of appeal reproduced above and submitted that there are three (3) issues being contested by assessee in present appeal, namely (i) Issue of TDS credit, (ii) Issue of disallowance

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

disallowed depreciation of Rs. 4,94,672/-. But thereafter the assessee has ignored the entire loss of Rs. 6,28,061/- and not claimed effect thereof in any manner i.e. neither the assessee claimed set off in current year nor carry-forward

RIDDHI SIDDHI REALTY,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(1), INCOME TAX INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assesse is allowed for

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiriddhi Siddhi Realty, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 39 Shardhanand Marg, 4(1), Vs. Indore Indore

carry-forward till 8 years and if the year under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 2017-18 is taken into consideration the assessee would get extra one year. Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of the revenue contended that the “impugned assessment order” of the Ld. Page 7 of 12 Riddhi Siddhi Realty ITA No.170/Ind/2025

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of losses without considering explanation and documentary evidence submitted by the assessee and he Cross Objection Nos.5 & 6/Ind/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16 proceeded to make addition on the basis of report of Investigation Wing Ahmadabad. From first appellate order, we clearly observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered all facts and circumstances in a totality

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

disallowance of losses without considering explanation and documentary evidence submitted by the assessee and he Cross Objection Nos.5 & 6/Ind/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16 proceeded to make addition on the basis of report of Investigation Wing Ahmadabad. From first appellate order, we clearly observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered all facts and circumstances in a totality

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

carry out necessary investigation, who in turn 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

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

carry out necessary investigation, who in turn 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

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

carry out necessary investigation, who in turn 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

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

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. FLEXITUFF VENTURES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, DHAR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Us Assailing The Order Of First-

disallowance made under section 14A made by AO without appreciating the facts and evidences mentioned in the assessment order by the AO. 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in allowing amount of Rs. 10,61,10,839/- in the form of carry forward loss

JAYANTILAL SANGHVI,INDORE vs. ACIT 4(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Acit, 8/10, Warehouse Road, 4(1), बनाम/ Patel Bridge, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtps5825Q Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2024

disallowance of “artificial/bogus loss” alleged to have been claimed by assessee through the process of CCM. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get any success. The CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeal by passing following order: “On perusal of the above, it is seen that the Gr. No. 5 are of general in nature

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

disallowance of contrived losses on NMCE (Rs.8,40,05,637/-) by overlooking the glaring evidences/ findings of synchronized trades executed by the assessee with a cluster of brokers/counterparties on MCE exchange which had resulted in excessive losses which were then set-off against profits from other exchanges and without appreciating that the selective quoting of certain loss transactions on other

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

disallowance of contrived losses on NMCE (Rs.8,40,05,637/-) by overlooking the glaring evidences/ findings of synchronized trades executed by the assessee with a cluster of brokers/counterparties on MCE exchange which had resulted in excessive losses which were then set-off against profits from other exchanges and without appreciating that the selective quoting of certain loss transactions on other

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

M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani&

carry forward losses which had accrued under the repealed Income Tax Act of 1922 is not saved expressly by Section 297 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. But, it is not necessary to save a right expressly in order to keep it alive after the repeal of the old Act of 1922. Section 6(2) saves accrued rights unless they

M/S SAHARA STATES,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani&

carry forward losses which had accrued under the repealed Income Tax Act of 1922 is not saved expressly by Section 297 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. But, it is not necessary to save a right expressly in order to keep it alive after the repeal of the old Act of 1922. Section 6(2) saves accrued rights unless they

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

forward as WIP and was not debited the profit and loss account. The appellant has filed the details of work in progress to substantiate that interest was included in work in progress and was not charged to the profit and loss account. The appellant further submitted that since the said interest expenditure was capitalized to work in progress

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

forward as WIP and was not debited the profit and loss account. The appellant has filed the details of work in progress to substantiate that interest was included in work in progress and was not charged to the profit and loss account. The appellant further submitted that since the said interest expenditure was capitalized to work in progress