RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

2 Explanation.- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section,- (i) the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129; (ii) any period during which the immunity granted under section 245H remained in force; and (iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

2 Explanation.- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section,- (i) the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129; (ii) any period during which the immunity granted under section 245H remained in force; and (iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

2 Explanation.- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section,- (i) the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129; (ii) any period during which the immunity granted under section 245H remained in force; and (iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter

KAMAL SHADIJA,INDORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX EPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2020-21 Kamal Shadija Assessment Unit 156, Palsikar Colony, Income Tax Department बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Azsps4490H Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

274/- [13,16,688 (-) 5,84,414] whereas the AO has made disallowance of entire interest of Rs. 13,16,688/-. Thus, the clause (c) is very much applicable. 6. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue also made oral arguments and also filed a written-submission raising following contentions: (i) The assessee has claimed deduction of interest expenditure

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

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

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

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

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 of expenditure of Rs. 3,25,94,416 which pertains to running and maintaining the educational institute. Department is not in appeal against this relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). [PB 116] For the addition made on account of concealment of fees of Rs. 69,70,505, Ld. CIT(A) restricted this addition

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 of expenditure of Rs. 3,25,94,416 which pertains to running and maintaining the educational institute. Department is not in appeal against this relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A). [PB 116] For the addition made on account of concealment of fees of Rs. 69,70,505, Ld. CIT(A) restricted this addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

274 ITR 785 (SC). Thus, a business whose income is utilized by the trust or the institution for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the trust or the institution is surely, a business which is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust. It is relevant to note that the provisions of section

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

274 ITR 785 (SC). Thus, a business whose income is utilized by the trust or the institution for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the trust or the institution is surely, a business which is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust. It is relevant to note that the provisions of section

R.M CHEMICALS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/AIT 4 (1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.R.M. Chemicals Acit , 4(1), Pvt.Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ 74,Jumerati, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7154D Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ca & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2023

disallowed excess deduction of Rs. 2,42,73,959/- [Rs. 2,89,62,249/- claimed by assessee (-) Rs. 46,88,290/- computed by AO]; thereby computed total income at Rs. 12,51,97,469/-. 4. Simultaneously, the AO initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c)qua the said addition vide show-cause notice dated 04.03.2016.During hearings of penalty-proceedings

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

2) of the Income Tax Act1961. No. dated have concealed the particulars of your Income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such Income. You are hereby requested to appear before me on 01/04/2014 at 3:00 pm and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271AAA of the Income

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

2) of the Income Tax Act1961. No. dated have concealed the particulars of your Income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such Income. You are hereby requested to appear before me on 01/04/2014 at 3:00 pm and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271AAA of the Income

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

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) on the footing that the assessee has ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’. In response, the assessee furnished reply on 18.06.2019. After considering assessee’s reply, the AO imposed penalty qua two disallowances Page 2 of 22 ITA No. 471/Ind/2023 - AY 2016-17 SRK Dev Build Pvt. Ltd out of three i.e. qua the disallowance

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MYDT,SEHORE, MP vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va). 14. Presently, the assessee is making a limited claim that the amount of Rs. 50,500/- is not fully on account of employee’s contribution, it also has Page 16 of 18 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mydt, Sehore ITA No. 407/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 component of employer’s contribution which

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:

2 - Through these ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 60,00,0001- U/S 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and also the initiation of the penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) and also the penalty show cause notice issued uls 274. 5.1.1 It is seen that the appellant filed its return

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