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

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

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

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

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

182 ITR 510, wherein the Delhi High Court dealing with identical question has already decided the matter against the present appellant-Revenue.” 8. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and respectfully following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court, we are of the view that no disallowance of commission payment is called for. Accordingly, Ground No. (i) of the appeal

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 68 may be invoked which is not the case here at all 4.19 With due respect, it is submitted that the allegation that the appellant has infused its own money in the grab of unsecured loon is without any basis and not correct and merely on the basis of conjecture or surmises. It is also undisputed fact that

THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD., INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2011-12

68 of the Act for the unsecured loan taken from the above referred two lender companies totalling to Rs. 1,44,75,000/- and we also direct the revenue authorities to allow the claim of interest expenditure of Rs.61,58,897/-. We thus dismiss Ground No. 1 & 2 of Revenue’s Appeal in the case of M/s Agrawal Transport Corporation

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 viz creditworthiness, of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, which have been doubted, by the AO in the assessment order. Both these issues are discussed here under: 6. A. CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER COMPANIES: The facts pertaining to each company are discussed separately as under.- 6.1 I. M/S CHAMAK

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 viz creditworthiness, of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, which have been doubted, by the AO in the assessment order. Both these issues are discussed here under: 6. A. CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER COMPANIES: The facts pertaining to each company are discussed separately as under.- 6.1 I. M/S CHAMAK

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 viz creditworthiness, of the loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions, which have been doubted, by the AO in the assessment order. Both these issues are discussed here under: 6. A. CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER COMPANIES: The facts pertaining to each company are discussed separately as under.- 6.1 I. M/S CHAMAK

PRAKASH JAVIA HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Prakash Javia Huf, Ito-5(1) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aahhp3362H Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Jayesh Kumar Javia, Huf, Ito-1(2) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadhj5797C Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Prakash Javia, Acit-4(1) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Abppp2848H

68, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the script from which the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain as “Penny Stock” a term nowhere define under the Income Tax Act as any other law for the time being in force, which is quite

JAYESH KUMAR JAVIA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 1(2) INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Prakash Javia Huf, Ito-5(1) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aahhp3362H Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Jayesh Kumar Javia, Huf, Ito-1(2) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadhj5797C Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Prakash Javia, Acit-4(1) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Abppp2848H

68, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the script from which the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain as “Penny Stock” a term nowhere define under the Income Tax Act as any other law for the time being in force, which is quite

PRAKASH JAVIA,INDORE vs. ACIT-4(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Prakash Javia Huf, Ito-5(1) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aahhp3362H Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Jayesh Kumar Javia, Huf, Ito-1(2) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aadhj5797C Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Prakash Javia, Acit-4(1) 40, Ashok Nagar Indore बनाम/ Behind Icici Bank Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Abppp2848H

68, which is quite unjust, illegal and against the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the script from which the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain as “Penny Stock” a term nowhere define under the Income Tax Act as any other law for the time being in force, which is quite

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT RANGE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

68 of 127 50 SOT 134 (Ahm.Trib), Mastek Limited vs. Addl. CIT, (2012) 53 SOT 111 (Ahm.), LGEC – NCC vs. ITO, (2014) 37 taxmann.com 402 (I.T.A.T. Hyd.). The assessee has further relied on the decision of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 241(Del), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has affirmed the use of OECD guidelines

M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT -CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

68 of 127 50 SOT 134 (Ahm.Trib), Mastek Limited vs. Addl. CIT, (2012) 53 SOT 111 (Ahm.), LGEC – NCC vs. ITO, (2014) 37 taxmann.com 402 (I.T.A.T. Hyd.). The assessee has further relied on the decision of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 241(Del), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has affirmed the use of OECD guidelines

THE DCIT-1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION P. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

68 of 127 50 SOT 134 (Ahm.Trib), Mastek Limited vs. Addl. CIT, (2012) 53 SOT 111 (Ahm.), LGEC – NCC vs. ITO, (2014) 37 taxmann.com 402 (I.T.A.T. Hyd.). The assessee has further relied on the decision of CIT vs. EKL Appliances Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 241(Del), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has affirmed the use of OECD guidelines