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

section 270A(2) is also not applicable because in the present case for the reason that the total income was reported by assessee at Rs. Nil which remained Rs. Nil at the time of assessment, it is not a case where the assessment has the effect of reducing the loss or converting loss into income. Ld. AR submitted that

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

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

Appeal is allowed

9 of letter\ndated 16.12.2019 to AO, copy at Pages 84-87 of Paper-Book. The assessee\nsubmitted that it has already disallowed salary cost of personnel in treasury\nfunction which had a nexus with the exempt income earned. The assessee\nalso submitted that Rule 8D would not apply to it because the assessee has\nalready made disallowance

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

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed (House property). That the\naforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as the\n“impugned assessment order”. In the “impugned assessment\norder" issuance of a penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s.270A(1)/\n270A(9)(a) of the Act was contemplated too.\n2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of\nthe Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty

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

270A for charging/computing penalty fails because of the fact that the total income determined by both assessee and AO was Rs. Nil. If the assessee raises such a claim, the AO shall also look into the same. 8. Before parting, we would like to deal the 3rd contention raised by Ld. AR as narrated above. On a careful study

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

270A(9), 271B and 272(1)(d). Page 2 of 10 CMM Keti JV, Indore. ITA No. 73/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 4. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) passed following order upholding the addition made by AO: “8. Ground no.1 is relating to addition of Rs. 1,03,58,390/- being 2% of the turnover as the income

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

270A is being initiated separately. 6. The provision of section 45(3) contemplates only the deemed consideration in case of transfer of capital asset by the partner to the partnership firm. Therefore, the claim of deduction u/s 54B cannot be denied only because the transfer of the capital asset falls under the provision of section

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

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

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

270A are hereby initiated for under reporting of income.” 5. Now, we extract the order passed by CIT(A) reading as under: “Ground No. 1.5 & 1.6 - The appellant has contended that the AO has erred in viewing the TAR pertaining to previous year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17 and made a disallowance of Rs. 41,39,084/-. In this regard

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

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

9 of 17 ITANo.189/Ind/2023 L.N. Malviya Infra Projects P. Ltd. 10. Ground no.3 is regarding adhoc disallowance of traveling expenses which was deleted by the CIT(A). Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has claimed traveling expenses of Rs.2,53,81,491/-. The AO on examination of the ledger account and invoice furnished by the assessee found that

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

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

9,9.1\n& 9.2 of the “Impugned Assessment Order” it was submitted by\nthe Ld. DR for the revenue that 20% of conveyance “expenses\n[Rs.14.90 lakh) & 20% travelling expenses” [Rs.67.98 lakh]\nwhich worked out to Rs.16,57,600/- disallowed is just, fair &\nequitable. The Ld. AO’s “Impugned Assessment Order” is just\nand equitably made.\n3.9 With regard

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

270A of the Income Tax Act 1961 whereas the Appellant had not under reported Income. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in levy of Interest u/s 234A,2348,234C & 234D. 4. The Appellant Craves leave to add, alter, amend any or all the Grounds of Appeal on or before the date of Hearing.” 2. Solitary common issue arises

INDORE SAHAKARI DUGDH SANGH MARYADIT,DAIRY COMPOUND, MANGLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

270A of the Income Tax Act 1961 whereas the Appellant had not under reported Income. 3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in levy of Interest u/s 234A,2348,234C & 234D. 4. The Appellant Craves leave to add, alter, amend any or all the Grounds of Appeal on or before the date of Hearing.” 2. Solitary common issue arises

MADHYA PRADESH VIDYUT MANDAL KARMCHARI PARASPAR SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MANDSAUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, we reject condonation request of assessee and consequently this appeal filed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshimadhya Pradesh Vidyut Pr. Cit-1, बनाम/ Mandal Karmchari Indore Vs. Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shop No.5 Nahar Sayyad Road, Kityani Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aaaam6716A Assessee By Shri Ashok Ratnawat, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2025

9,88,400/-. Subsequently, the case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) which remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the AO passed ex-parte assessment-order u/s 144 denying the benefit of deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 54,26,486/- and assessing total income at Rs. 64,14,886/-, the relevant