M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide letter issued vide DIN 22/1041672758(1) dated 26.03.2022.” 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned penalty order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act on Page 4 of 22 Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670&671 /Ind/2024 - A.Ys.2017-18&2018-19 06.11.2023 (Form No.35) before

SHRI SURESH LILANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal

SHRI RAJENDRA MANSUKHANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) I, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal

SHRI UMESH LILANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) I, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

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

274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This demand should be paid as per the demand notice enclosed." 2.2 That the assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid "Impugned Penalty Order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order" has dismissed the 1st appeal of the Assessee

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

INDORE CONTRACT BRIDGE ASSOCIATION YEASHWANT CLUB,INDORE vs. ITO ,WARD-EXAMPTION , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Indore Contract Bridge Cpc, Association, Bangalore बनाम/ Yashwant Club, Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaai 1652 F Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

condonation of delay in filing first-appeal before Ld. CIT(A). We accept assessee’s submissions and reverse the decision of dismissal taken by Ld. CIT(A). The assessee succeeds in this ground. Ground No. 2 to 3: 8. The exact controversy involved in these grounds is whether or not the assessee was entitled for exemption u/s 11/12 as claimed

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A),NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

delay is condoned following the same adjudication as made by us in earlier part of this order in ITA No. 130/Ind/2025. 9. Coming to the issue involved in appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by AO for failure to comply with the notice dated 17.11.2016 issued by AO u/s 142(1) during assessment

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

delay is condoned following the same adjudication as made by us in earlier part of this order in ITA No. 130/Ind/2025. 9. Coming to the issue involved in appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by AO for failure to comply with the notice dated 17.11.2016 issued by AO u/s 142(1) during assessment

NANCY ANN MILLER EDUCATIONAL TRUST,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-EXEMPTION, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Nancy Ann Miller Income-Tax Officer, Educational Trust, Ward-(Exemption), बनाम/ 64/67, Dhar Kothi, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaatn4010B Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

condoning the delay in filing audit report (Form No. 10B) but the assessee has not filed any petition before Commissioner of Income-tax, and (iii) The assessee has filed rectification-application u/s 154 and thereafter come in appeal before him instead of appeal against intimation u/s 143(1). The assessee ought to have challenged the intimation

ADARSH SHISHU VIHAR,INDORE vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU AND ITO EXEMPTION WARD, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2019-20 Adarsh Shishu Vihar, Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru & C/O Ca Rajesh Mehta, Ito (Exemption Ward), Rajesh Heeralal Mehta & Indore Company, Chartered Accountants, बनाम/ 203, Manas Bhawan Extn, Vs. 11, Rnt Marg, Near Hotel Shreemaya, Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaaaa2270K Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13 .06.2024

delay in filing audit-report to the Commissioner of Income-tax and therefore the appellate authorities do not have any power to condone. 8. We have heard rival contentions of both sides and examined the present case in the light of judicial decisions. After a careful consideration, we have following analysis and adjudication: (i) So far as allowability of exemption

ROSHNI HOMI DAJI BAHU UDDESHIYA SHIKSHA AVM SARVAJANIK NYAS,INDORE vs. CPC, BENGLURU, BENGLURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2023-24 Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Cpc, Bengaluru Uddeshiya Shiksha Avm Sarvajanik Nyas, बनाम/ 119, Kanlindi Kunj, Vs. Pipliyahana Square, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaetr9004R Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

condones the delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. Keeping in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the AO has rightly denied exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act and rightly made addition of Rs. 1,03,26,610/- to the income of the appellant. Therefore, ground No. 1 to 6 are dismissed.” (viii

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

274/- i.e. 0.86%. 2.4 In the assessee’s case monthly average sales is about 3 crore & most of the sales were in cash. 2.5 That the assessee in response to the above notice filed written submission, copy of balance sheet, P/L A/C, and the information as required as per the questionnaire. 2.6 That in the ITR the Assessee

SHRI VISHWAMITRA SHIKSHAN SAMITI,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Vishwamitra Income-Tax Officer, Shikshan Samiti, 5(1), 104, J. B. Complex, Indore. बनाम/ Race Course Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aajts1473J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024

condone delay in filing audit-report to CIT but the assessee has not availed the remedy. Therefore, it is a fault of assessee only. With these submissions, Ld. DR prayed to uphold the AO’s order. 8. We have heard rival contentions of both sides and examined the present case in the light of judicial decisions. After a careful consideration

BALKISHAN KOSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

condone delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, 1961, hence appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless Delhi had not considered the response filed by appellant, hence appeal-order is incomplete, prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set aside according