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

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

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

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 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

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

THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. M.C.S. TRADING COM. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result the appeals of the revenue for Assessment Year

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

68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. a. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not deciding the issue on merits with respect to the ad-hoc addition of Rs.2,66,835/- made by the AO in the respondent's income

SOM DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(3), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

430/-, 1,50,070/-, 68,903/- and one voucher of Rs. 13,335/- produced. This voucher was prepared against many bills including a bill of Rs. 4,090/- which was issued in the name of Som Group (I) Pvt. Ltd. and not in the name of assessee. 3. Repair & 6,67,31,828/- No ledger, bill/voucher maintenance – produced Building

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, BHOPAL , BHOPAL vs. SOM DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical

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

430/-, 1,50,070/-, 68,903/- and one voucher of Rs. 13,335/- produced. This voucher was prepared against many bills including a bill of Rs. 4,090/- which was issued in the name of Som Group (I) Pvt. Ltd. and not in the name of assessee. 3. Repair & 6,67,31,828/- No ledger, bill/voucher maintenance – produced Building

JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

430,721 Int A/c Jama Chadha Int Jama July To 10/3/2016 Tyre 68,250 24,362,471 Sep 10/4/2016 Kiran Bhai 45,000 24,317,471 Int A/c Jama Page 18 of 83 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia IT(SS)A Nos. 19 to 27/Ind/2023 & ITA No. 226 & 228/Ind/2023- AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 10/4/2016 R.K.V.K

THE ACIT CENTRAL-3, INDORE vs. JARNALBEER SINGH BHATIA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.19 To 23/Ind/2023 & Ita No.226/Ind/2023 Ays : 2013-14 To 2018-19 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia, Dcit/Acit, बनाम/ Bhatia Transport (Central)-3, Vs. Services, Indore. Old Indore Lines, Pandhana Road, Khandwa (Pan: Aixpb4565C) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

430,721 Int A/c Jama Chadha Int Jama July To 10/3/2016 Tyre 68,250 24,362,471 Sep 10/4/2016 Kiran Bhai 45,000 24,317,471 Int A/c Jama Page 18 of 83 Jarnalbeer Singh Bhatia IT(SS)A Nos. 19 to 27/Ind/2023 & ITA No. 226 & 228/Ind/2023- AY 2013-14 to 2018-19 10/4/2016 R.K.V.K

SHRI DINESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY,GAROTH vs. THE ITO, MANDSAUR

In the result Ground No.3 of the assessee is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2003-04 Dinesh Kumar Choudhary, Ito, Prop. Abhinav Traders Mandsaur बनाम/ C/O P. Mogra& Associates, Ca Vs. 203, M.D. Tower Near Janjirwalla Square Garoth (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaxpc8055G Appellant By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra Ca’S Revenue By Shrir.P. Morya, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.08.2018

68,420 3,282 43,385 1,48,258 1,83,120 1,29,712 5,85,155 3.1 Deleted by the Ld CIT[A] 54,200 65,500 82,800 NIL 3.2 Reference of CIT[A] order dt 18-04-13 10-05-16 18-04- 18-04- 2013 2013 Dinesh Kumar Choudhary ITA, No. 757/Ind/2016

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. COMMANDER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

68,577/- and had claimed a deduction of Rs.5,80,542/- u/s. 80JJAA of the Act, for which, separate form i.e., Form 10DA was duly e-filed on 23.12.2020. Since, the gross income of the appellant as per the return was Nil, the said deduction could not be claimed. During the course of assessment proceedings, due to disallowance of depreciation

ASHISH SODANI,PIPARIYA vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes,

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

430/- in view of the facts of the case and failure of assessee to give any explanation. Even in the appeal proceedings, the appellant has failed to substantiate the grounds taken in the appeal and accordingly, addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 9,02,88,400/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68

ASHISH SODANI,PIPARIYA vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes,

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

430/- in view of the facts of the case and failure of assessee to give any explanation. Even in the appeal proceedings, the appellant has failed to substantiate the grounds taken in the appeal and accordingly, addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 9,02,88,400/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68

M/S. BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. THE ACIT NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

68,65,805) in respect of the subsidies received from Government of Maharashtra under the Packaged Scheme of Incentives, 2007 by treating the same as revenue receipt. Page 1 of 27 Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 27 Prayer: The Appellant prays that the addition made by Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP be deleted

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

430/-. We also find that at computerized sheets inventorized as page No.22 to 23, some cost of work at Rs.1,94,12,306.50p has been stated. Further, at page No.16 and 17 cost of work has been mentioned at Rs.81,26,739.57p. At page No. 16, the sum total of these two costs have been mentioned at Rs.2