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

bogus nature of the subject transactions. This, under such circumstances the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) cannot be said as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, needs to be quashed. M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. Without prejudice further, to the above it is submitted that the recourse to section 263(1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus donations in their names to channelize its unaccounted money -. ' The assessee in response to the specific show cause in this regard has argued that the, statements have been recorded behind the assessee and no cross enquiry was given to the assessee. Such submissions have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee despite repeated requested failed to furnish

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus donations in their names to channelize its unaccounted money -. ' The assessee in response to the specific show cause in this regard has argued that the, statements have been recorded behind the assessee and no cross enquiry was given to the assessee. Such submissions have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee despite repeated requested failed to furnish

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

b. ITO vs Tech span (P.) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10(SC) c. Mukand Limited vs Union of India (Bombay, HC) d. Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra vs ITO e. PCIT vs Fibres and Fabrics International (P.) Ltd [2022] 139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) f. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 2.3 Thus, Ld. AR submitted that though in the assessment order

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

b. ITO vs Tech span (P.) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10(SC) c. Mukand Limited vs Union of India (Bombay, HC) d. Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra vs ITO e. PCIT vs Fibres and Fabrics International (P.) Ltd [2022] 139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) f. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 2.3 Thus, Ld. AR submitted that though in the assessment order

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

b. ITO vs Tech span (P.) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10(SC) c. Mukand Limited vs Union of India (Bombay, HC) d. Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra vs ITO e. PCIT vs Fibres and Fabrics International (P.) Ltd [2022] 139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) f. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 2.3 Thus, Ld. AR submitted that though in the assessment order

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule is ended

SWAN PETRCHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 271(1)(c) whereas at the most it is a case of furnishing incorrect particulars of income and not concealment of particulars of income. Therefore the Explanation-1 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions: 4 M/s. Swan Petrochemicals Pvt.Ltd (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule is ended

RAMA GARG,SEHORE vs. DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rama Garg, Dcit-3(1), Gadhi Chok, Bhopal Chota Bazar, Vs. Nasrullaganj, Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abcpg1140J Assessee By Shri R.K. Mangal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024

purchases however, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of electricity 2 Smt. Rama Garg charges has been confirmed by this Tribunal and consequently the CIT(A) has restricted the penalty to the extent of disallowance of electricity expenses. 5. Before the Tribunal Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the electricity expenses claimed by the assessee

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

271 (J&K) and holding that AO cannot make arbitrary addition and base his conclusion purely on guess work and thereafter, restricting the disallowance to 3 of expenses, when, the AO has clearly held that the assessee was unable to establish the genuineness of such expenses incurred (being expenses of contractual nature) as such expense were undertaken with sister concerns

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

271 (J&K) and holding that AO cannot make arbitrary addition and base his conclusion purely on guess work and thereafter, restricting the disallowance to 3 of expenses, when, the AO has clearly held that the assessee was unable to establish the genuineness of such expenses incurred (being expenses of contractual nature) as such expense were undertaken with sister concerns

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

271 (J&K) and holding that AO cannot make arbitrary addition and base his conclusion purely on guess work and thereafter, restricting the disallowance to 3 of expenses, when, the AO has clearly held that the assessee was unable to establish the genuineness of such expenses incurred (being expenses of contractual nature) as such expense were undertaken with sister concerns

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

271 (J&K) and holding that AO cannot make arbitrary addition and base his conclusion purely on guess work and thereafter, restricting the disallowance to 3 of expenses, when, the AO has clearly held that the assessee was unable to establish the genuineness of such expenses incurred (being expenses of contractual nature) as such expense were undertaken with sister concerns

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

purchases from such\nsuppliers who are either Non Filer(s) or have filed non business\nITR or reflected a substantially lower turnover in\nKriti Nutrients Ltd.\nITA No. 780/Ind/2024\nA.Y. 2021-22\nPage 23 of 107\nITR as compared to turnover shown in GSTR 1 return There\nis a possibility that assessee has booked bogus expenses in\norder to reduce

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

271(1)9c) are also initiated.” 3. Before the ld.CIT(A), the appellant filed following written submissions: With regard to the Income Tax Appeal in the case of our above named client company for the Assessment Year 2013-14, we have to submit as under:- Ground No. 1 1.1 This ground relate to deemed addition

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

b).” [Emphasis supplied] Ld. AR co-related the quantum of penalty computed by AO in Para No. 5 of penalty-order vis-à-vis the provisions of section 271AAB and submitted that the AO has imposed penalty @ 10% qua the income of Rs. 47,59,000/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) and not @ 60% u/s 271AAB(1)(c). That means

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

271(1)(सी) के "ावधान आपको समझाया है । "या आप इन धाराओं के तहत "मलनेवाले लाभ को उठाना चाह"गे ता"क आपको य"द कोई शाि"त या अ"भयोजन कर अपवंचन के "लए होता है तो उससे मुि"त "मल सकती है । Page 13 of 77 Shri Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. ACIT,3(1), Indore

KAMAL PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

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

271(1)(सी) के "ावधान आपको समझाया है । "या आप इन धाराओं के तहत "मलनेवाले लाभ को उठाना चाह"गे ता"क आपको य"द कोई शाि"त या अ"भयोजन कर अपवंचन के "लए होता है तो उससे मुि"त "मल सकती है । Page 13 of 77 Shri Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. ACIT,3(1), Indore