PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , 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

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

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

depreciation so made. Though there is no addition made by the Ld. AO, the alleged penalty proceedings were initiated and subsequently levied for the alleged claim of bogus expenditure. 8. We also note that for initiating penalty proceedings following show cause notice was issued u/s 274 r.w.rt. 271(1)(c) of the Act : M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020

THE ACIT (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

depreciation on newly installed plant and machinery. The Ld. AO selected case under scrutiny, issued statutory notices and finally completed assessment u/s 143(3) on 26.12.2018. Simultaneously on 26.12.2018, the Ld. AO issued notice u/s 274 read with section 271

DHANRAJ DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT (1), INDORE

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], the assessee has filed this appeal on the following grounds: “1. The penalty levied by AO is null and void as the notice issued is vague as to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The penalty levied by AO is null and void

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

section 271(1)(c). Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has disclosed complete and accurate particulars of the claims of depreciation

PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,MHOW vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

depreciation on the same was claimed consistently by the appellant and onwards when the appellant was confronted with this fact, the appellant offered undisclosed income in the submission. Addition of Rs. 2,12,774/- was made to the total income of the assessee for the AY 2014-15 and penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB was initiated on this issue.” 3. Aggrieved

M/S KETI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

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

section 271AAA, rather for doing an act inviting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which otherwise is neither arising out of the facts of the case nor established against the assessee. Thus, the penalty proceedings conducted against the assessee u/s 271AAA of the Act were invalid at its very inception because of the defective and invalid show cause

M/S KETI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE, INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

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

section 271AAA, rather for doing an act inviting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which otherwise is neither arising out of the facts of the case nor established against the assessee. Thus, the penalty proceedings conducted against the assessee u/s 271AAA of the Act were invalid at its very inception because of the defective and invalid show cause

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

depreciation was claimed against this cost in the return of income filed by the Assessee for the year under consideration. 5.4 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO / T * PO pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble DRP, has erred by not taking cognizance of the evidences submitted by the Appellant which

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

271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of disallowance of claim u/s 35 in respect of 6 items out of total 9 items claimed by the assessee. Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 5 Smt. Rama Garg 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

depreciation allowance" in Section 147 after the conditions for reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in Clauses (a) and (b) viz., "escaped assessment". The term "escaped assessment" includes both "non- assessment" as well as "under assessment". Income is said to have "escaped assessment" within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged

SAIPHIA TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) , NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2015-16 Saiphia Technology Private Nfac Limited, Delhi 1St Floor Ankit Plaza, बनाम/ Kolar Road, Vs. Near Nayapura Bus Stop, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aancs1814Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2025

271(1)(c) imposing a penalty of Rs. 12,00,000/-. Aggrieved by penalty-order, the assessee filed first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. Page 2 of 5 Saiphia Tecnology Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 172/Ind/2024 – AY 2015-16 3. In so far as the first

SHRI HUMAD JAIN SAKH SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,INDORE vs. ITO 2(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other\nallowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned\n(hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as\nthe relevant assessment year):\nProvided that\nProvided further that........\nProvided also that .....\nExplanation (1) ......\nExplanation (2).......\nExplanation 3 : For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under\nthis section, the Assessing

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23(1)(a) of the Act may not be invoked in order to determine the annual taxable value of the assessee property and determine the same at Rs.50,000/- per month in each case of Mobile Tower. 25. However, the Ld. AO was ultimately formed an opinion that : ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23(1)(a) of the Act may not be invoked in order to determine the annual taxable value of the assessee property and determine the same at Rs.50,000/- per month in each case of Mobile Tower. 25. However, the Ld. AO was ultimately formed an opinion that : ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23(1)(a) of the Act may not be invoked in order to determine the annual taxable value of the assessee property and determine the same at Rs.50,000/- per month in each case of Mobile Tower. 25. However, the Ld. AO was ultimately formed an opinion that : ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. M.P. ENTERTAINMENT & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 23(1)(a) of the Act may not be invoked in order to determine the annual taxable value of the assessee property and determine the same at Rs.50,000/- per month in each case of Mobile Tower. 25. However, the Ld. AO was ultimately formed an opinion that : ITA Nos.117,118&344/Ind/2017 & 203/Ind/2018 DCIT vs. M. P. Entertainment & Developers

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

depreciation. He has also referred to the regulations in para 6.1.1 and submitted that the charges collected from the customers are required to be kept in a separate account and are used only for augmenting existing distribution/ EHT system or creating new distribution system. Therefore, these charges cannot be utilized other than the purpose providing in the regulations