MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023 AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 Ground No. 3 to 5: 14. In these grounds, the revenue has challenged the CIT(A)’s action of deleting

SMT HAFIZ SHAIKH,DEWAS vs. THE ITO WARD-1, DEWAS

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanihafiz Shaikh Ito Ward-1 32/2, Laxmi Park Moti Dewas Vs. Bunglow Dewas (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajups6986 L Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023

disallowed and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee for the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18. I am satisfied that assessee under reporting income as per provision of section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, on this initiate penalty proceedings u/s 270A is being initiated separately. 6. The provision of section 45(3

BADAUD SHRI VARDHMAN SHIKSHA ,BADAUD vs. THE ITO NFAC DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2018-19 Badaud Shri Vardhaman Ito, बनाम/ Shiksha Samiti, Nfac, Badaud Delhi Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacab5370 Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

disallowed depreciation of Rs. 4,93,672/-as well) but that loss has no meaning when the assessee has ultimately ignored the same by neither claiming set off in current AY 2018-19 nor carry- Page 3 of 6 Badaud Shri Vardhman Shiksha Samiti, Badaud Assessment year 2018-19 forward/brought-forward benefit in next AY 2019-20. Ld. AR pointed

DXC TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

disallowance made by the AO was therefore against the provisions of law.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "14A", "143(3)", "142(1)", "10(35)", "115JB", "270A

MALWA OXYGEN AND INDUSTRIAL GASES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECTOR C, INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. AO-RATLAM/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, RATLAM/DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

270A(9)(a) are initiated separately.\n[Disallowance of Rs.78,72,495/-]\n6. During first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld AO's action by passing following\norder:\n“6.1 From the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant failed to produce\nsupporting evidences for claim of expenditure incurred towards scientific\nresearch before the Secretary DSIR, Government of India

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

3) of the\nAct, the total income of the assessee exigible to tax was computed\nand assessed at Rs.16,94,610/-. The return of income was at\nRs.9,20,910/-. An addition of Rs.7,73,704/- was made on\nthe ground of loss disallowed (House property). That the\naforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the\n“impugned assessment

MR.VINEET SHRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO ( IT&TP), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimr. Vineet Shrivastava Ito (It & Tp) E-7/795, Arera Colony Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bcxps 2544 H Assessee By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023

disallowing the benefit of section 54 of the Act amounting to INR 64.04.260 on alleged ground that the deposit in capital gain account scheme was made on 3 September 2019 falling beyond the due date of filing return under section 139 of the Act. 6.1 That the Ld. AO failed appreciate that the account opening application along with cheque number

NIRVINDHYA SHIKSHA AVAM SANSKRITI PRACHAR SAMITI,RAJGARH vs. ITO, RAJGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Nirvindhya Shiksha Avam Income-Tax Officer, Sanskriti Prachar Samiti, Rajgarh Biaora, C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37, Trade Centre, Vs. 18,South Tukoganj, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaan8371J Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2024

section 11(6) of the Income-tax Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income-tax Act are being initiated separately for under reporting of income. (Disallowance of Rs. 52,49,523/-)” 5. Referring to above, Ld. AR made three-fold contentions as under: Page 3

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

disallowed (House property). That the aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment order” issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A(1)/ 270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too. 2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of the Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

INCOME TAX OFFICER -4(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. HAMID HUSAIN, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

sections": [ "143(3)", "144B", "143(2)", "142(1)", "270A", "46A", "139(1)", "206C", "133(6)" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of 100% of purchases

SHREE SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY ,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

3 of 2nd affidavit, Shri Abhishek\nUpadhyay/Secretary has given a detailed explanation that he got an\nimpression that the appeal was allowed and no further action was\nneeded. We find that Shri Abhishek Upadhyay/Secretary has given\nsolemnized averment of the understanding (may be a mis-\nunderstanding) gained by him from order of CIT(A). This personal\nunderstanding and consequently keeping

CMM KETI JV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(3), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Cmm Keti Jv, Income-Tax Officer, 108, Shalimar Corporate 1(3), Center, Indore. बनाम/ 8-B, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aakfc7524K Assessee By Shri Shashank Sharma, Ca & Shri Prakash Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

3. The AO initiated penalty proceeding u/s 270A(9) as noted in preceding para. Further, the AO also observed that the assessee has made most of the payments to CMM Infraprojects Ltd. [“CMM”], a partner of assessee-firm and the payments so made were covered by section 40A(2)(b) but no reporting qua such transactions was made in Point

AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 68 of the Act of 1961 says that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion

KHANDWA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. ACIT, KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Khandwa Industries Pvt. Ld., Acit, G-2 Amans Corner, Khandwa बनाम/ 301, Goyal Vihar, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aadck4103G Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025

3. The sole issue involved in present appeal is the disallowance of Rs. 41,39,084/- u/s 40A(2) made by AO and upheld by CIT(A). 4. At first, we extract the order passed by AO in this regard: “(ii) Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b):- Further auditor in Form 3CD at column no. 23 have furnished the particulars

HAMID HUSAIN,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiito-4(1), Hamid Husain, बनाम/ Bhopal 369, Kaji Camp, Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Hamid Husain, Assessment Unit, बनाम/ 369, Kaji Camp, Income Tax Department Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 270A of the I.T. Act are also being initiated separately for under reporting of the income. (Addition of Rs. 9,10,39,185/-)” (ii) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The assessee made detailed submission which is re-produced by CIT(A) in Para No. 4 / Pages 3 to 6 of impugned order

RIDDHI SIDDHI REALTY,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(1), INCOME TAX INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assesse is allowed for

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiriddhi Siddhi Realty, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 39 Shardhanand Marg, 4(1), Vs. Indore Indore

disallowed since these amount assessee paid in F.Y.2015-16.so an amount of Rs.7,61,540/- added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act are initiated for under-reporting of Income by assessee. 9. Subject to the above remarks and on the basis of data made available on records, total income is determined

THE DCIT CIRCLE 5(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S L N MALVIYA INFRA PROJECTS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

Section 201(1A) of the Act, therefore, would not assume the character of business expenditure and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment as contended by learned counsel for the assessee.” (ii) Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT(1992) 196 ITR 406 (Bombay High Court): The Hon’ble Court held thus: “3. The point stands concluded against the assessee