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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.03.2014 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,71,42,454/-. Further that the Ld. AO re-characterised the income from operation of the mall as shown by the assessee in its computation of income under the head “Income from Business Profession” to the head “Income From House Properties

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

9. On a perusal of the provisions of section 271AAB, it is distinctly evident\nthat the section 271AAB of the Act is self-contained. It is worthy to note\nthat, on one hand, the sub section (1) thereof authorises levy of penalty on\nundisclosed income where the proceedings u/s 132 of the Act is initiated,\nand on the other hand

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

property jointly with Mr. D. P. Azad, her father-in-law on 2.1.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 95 lacs. The due date of filing of return as per Section 139(1) of the Act was 31.7.2006, but the assessee filed her return on 28.3.2007 and that extended due date of filing of return as per Section

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

House, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN AACCS4128C Appellant by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, CAs Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement 03.06.2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year

M/S SANGHVI FOODS P LTD, ,INDORE vs. ITO (IT & TP) , BHOPAL

In the result common issue raised in

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

House, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN AACCS4128C Appellant by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, CAs Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement 03.06.2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeals filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

9, Ghyan Shree, Itwara Road, Bhopal after the demise of their father Shri Nitin Mehta on 10.12.2001. Subsequently, on 13.03.2012 the said house property was sold for a consideration of Rs. 29,00,000/- and 50% of it being the equal share to the tune of Rs. 14,50,000/- was paid to the assessee and her sister. The assessee

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

9, the appellant had declared the. ITA No.252/Ind/2017 (Shri Surendra Singh Bhatia vs. JCIT) Asst.Year.– 2008-09 - 11 - undisclosed income to the extent of Rs.14,00,00,000/- on account of unpaid freight, keeping in mind the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income-Tax Act] 1961. Likewise, in reply to the question No. 10, the appellant had declared

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

9 of the impugned order, the Commissioner records that the violation of section 11 & 13 of the Act would result in forfeiture of exemption not only for the year in which such transactions occur but also for the years when such arrangement continues to be in force. In our considered opinion, such an approach of the Commissioner is quiet misdirected

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

9 of the impugned order, the Commissioner records that the violation of section 11 & 13 of the Act would result in forfeiture of exemption not only for the year in which such transactions occur but also for the years when such arrangement continues to be in force. In our considered opinion, such an approach of the Commissioner is quiet misdirected

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

9 to 14 of 2018] held that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable when there is no specific charge mentioned in the show cause notice [refer Para 11 of the decision]: “11. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, so also considering the fact that the ground mentioned

FAIZAN E BURHANE MILLAT TRUST,JABALPUR vs. THE CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanifaizan E Burhane Millat Cit(Exemption) Trust Bhopal 181/1, Baitla Colony Vfj Society, Ward Shaheed, Abdul Vs. Hameed, Raza Chowk Milk, Scheme Road, Jabalpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatf8671J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Nd Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. -Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2024

section 13(1)(b) would be attracted in the case of the assessee. Further, CIT(E) has observed that the objects of the assessee confined to benefit to only Muslim community and therefore, it would be covered by restriction u/s 13(1)(b) of the Act even though it functions for public benefit. At the outset we noted that

SATYANARAYAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

9 Satyanarayan Sharma /ITANo.426/Ind/2018 assessment order passed in case of assessee-firm on ground that Assessing Officer did not make proper enquiry regarding genuineness of certain cash credits found in books of firm – However, Tribunal held that since assessee had explained satisfactorily cash credit in books of account and discharged burden and Department had not brought out material or evidence

BHARAT SHAH,INDORE vs. THE ITO3(4), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

1. Absence of registration deed should not affect exemption under Section 54F •The benefit to be availed under Section 54F stipulates the purchase or construction of a new house property. It is immaterial if such purchase has been evidenced by a registered deed or not. Merely on account of absence of registered sale deed, the assessee should not be disentitled