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

1 and 3 of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Act and that the assessee has admitted the undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of search and has also paid taxes together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income. The bone of contention revolves round

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13(1)(c

M/S SHREE JAIRAM EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

disallowance made at Rs.2048173/- therefore, be kindly deleted. 4. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned lower authorities wholly wrong and opposed to fact that the society had paid Rs.561877 to Vijay Ramani who is the member of the society and therefore, there is violation of section 13(1)(c

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

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

disallowances. The additions made by the Ld. A.O were partly deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and remaining were deleted by the Tribunal except for the addition of Rs.2,28,103/- sustained on account of additional claim of depreciation. 6. Subsequently Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee’s submissions were noted in the penalty proceedings

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

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

disallowances. The additions made by the Ld. A.O were partly deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and remaining were deleted by the Tribunal except for the addition of Rs.2,28,103/- sustained on account of additional claim of depreciation. 6. Subsequently Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessee’s submissions were noted in the penalty proceedings

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c

M/S HAI HAY KSHATRIYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Hon’Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal Pan – Aaath 3738 E ::: Appellant

section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(b) r.w.s. 13(3) and thus the assessee is fully eligible for exemption u/s.11 & 12 of the I.T. Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the following additions/disallowances. Such additions/disallowances are wholly unlawful and injudicious hence

M/S JAI NARAIN SHIKSHA SAMITI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Hon’Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal Pan – Aaath 3738 E ::: Appellant

section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(b) r.w.s. 13(3) and thus the assessee is fully eligible for exemption u/s.11 & 12 of the I.T. Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the following additions/disallowances. Such additions/disallowances are wholly unlawful and injudicious hence

M/S RISHIRAJ MEMORIAL EDUCATION & WELFARE SOCIETY,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Hon’Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal Pan – Aaath 3738 E ::: Appellant

section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(b) r.w.s. 13(3) and thus the assessee is fully eligible for exemption u/s.11 & 12 of the I.T. Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the following additions/disallowances. Such additions/disallowances are wholly unlawful and injudicious hence

M/S H.K. KALCHURI EDUCATION TRUST,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Hon’Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal Pan – Aaath 3738 E ::: Appellant

section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(b) r.w.s. 13(3) and thus the assessee is fully eligible for exemption u/s.11 & 12 of the I.T. Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the following additions/disallowances. Such additions/disallowances are wholly unlawful and injudicious hence

M/S. STI (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowances at Rs.6,13,67,779/- income assessed at Rs.13,16,16,126/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5. During the course of penalty proceedings Ld. Assessing Officer (in short ‘Ld. AO’) after going through the submissions given by the assessee imposed the penalty at Rs.7

SHRI VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

disallowed in returned income cannot be held to be retrospective in operation - Held, yes _ Whether fiction created under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C by itself, cannot be extended to penalty proceedings to raise a presumption about concealment of such income - Held, yes - Whether on a finding that return of income which is less than 80 per cent

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual