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

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 and also considered

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

reassessment proceedings made detailed enquiry and established beyond doubt that the losses obtained by assessee on NMCE platform were contrived losses and these losses were incurred by executing the synchronized trade dealings in illiquid commodities. The Ld. CIT(DR) also submitted that Cross Objection No.17/Ind/2020 Cross Objection Nos.04 & 09/Ind/2021 Essence Commodities Pvt. Ltd., the losses were incurred with a specific

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

reassessment proceedings made detailed enquiry and established beyond doubt that the losses obtained by assessee on NMCE platform were contrived losses and these losses were incurred by executing the synchronized trade dealings in illiquid commodities. The Ld. CIT(DR) also submitted that Cross Objection No.17/Ind/2020 Cross Objection Nos.04 & 09/Ind/2021 Essence Commodities Pvt. Ltd., the losses were incurred with a specific

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

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

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

forward business loss. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 6. Any other ground may be permitted to be taken later That the appellant further craves leave to add, to alter and or to amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when necessary. (No Tax Effect) 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following Shivnarayan Sharma

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

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

forward business loss. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 6. Any other ground may be permitted to be taken later That the appellant further craves leave to add, to alter and or to amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when necessary. (No Tax Effect) 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following Shivnarayan Sharma

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

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

forward business loss. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 6. Any other ground may be permitted to be taken later That the appellant further craves leave to add, to alter and or to amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when necessary. (No Tax Effect) 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following Shivnarayan Sharma

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

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

forward business loss. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 6. Any other ground may be permitted to be taken later That the appellant further craves leave to add, to alter and or to amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when necessary. (No Tax Effect) 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following Shivnarayan Sharma

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

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

forward business loss. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 6. Any other ground may be permitted to be taken later That the appellant further craves leave to add, to alter and or to amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when necessary. (No Tax Effect) 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following Shivnarayan Sharma

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

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

forward business loss. (Tax Effect Rs. 205916/-) 6. Any other ground may be permitted to be taken later That the appellant further craves leave to add, to alter and or to amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when necessary. (No Tax Effect) 3. From perusal of the above grounds we find that following Shivnarayan Sharma

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

carrying out the enquiries. Recently information has also been received from Investigation Wing that one of the lenders namely KCL Infra Projects from whom the assessee has taken substantial loan during the year has also been found to be involved in penny stock transactions. Therefore, it appears that this company is also involved in accommodative transactions. The balance sheet

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

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

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

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