M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 153A. The perusal of statement recorded us 1324 shows that no specific question was put regarding manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. However, impliedly the manner of income earned was from business income only. We are also of the view that the assessee has already disclosed undisclosed income in proceeding and but not clearly specified the manner

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 153A. The perusal of statement recorded us 1324 shows that no specific question was put regarding manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. However, impliedly the manner of income earned was from business income only. We are also of the view that the assessee has already disclosed undisclosed income in proceeding and but not clearly specified the manner

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

u/s 153A. The perusal of statement recorded us 1324 shows that no specific question was put regarding manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. However, impliedly the manner of income earned was from business income only. We are also of the view that the assessee has already disclosed undisclosed income in proceeding and but not clearly specified the manner

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

business income” but the AO assessed as “Income from House Property”, there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and penalty u/s 271

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

business expenditure since same would form part of tax. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Same is hereby confirmed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 30. Ground No.4 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication. 31. In pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has raised following

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

business expenditure since same would form part of tax. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Same is hereby confirmed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 30. Ground No.4 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication. 31. In pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has raised following

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

business expenditure since same would form part of tax. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Same is hereby confirmed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 30. Ground No.4 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication. 31. In pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has raised following

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

business expenditure since same would form part of tax. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Same is hereby confirmed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 30. Ground No.4 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication. 31. In pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has raised following

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

business expenditure since same would form part of tax. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Same is hereby confirmed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 30. Ground No.4 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication. 31. In pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has raised following

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

business expenditure since same would form part of tax. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Same is hereby confirmed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 30. Ground No.4 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication. 31. In pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has raised following

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

business expenditure since same would form part of tax. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Same is hereby confirmed. Ground No.3 is dismissed. 30. Ground No.4 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication. 31. In pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has raised following

THE ACIT -4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI MUKESH SANGLA, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2010-11 Acit-4(1), Shri Mukesh Sangla, Indore बनाम/ Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Anaps5579F

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,77,60,000/- levied by the AO on the additional income offered by the assessee in the return filed u/s 153A by invoking the deeming provision of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c). We find that after the search, the assessee prepared a cash flow statement and offered additional income

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately is recorded. Further the assessee in the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s153A, the assessee had shown undisclosed income of Rs.4,50,000/-. The assessee had not given the details of the surrendered income. Since the assessee himself has shown additional income, due credit

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately is recorded. Further the assessee in the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s153A, the assessee had shown undisclosed income of Rs.4,50,000/-. The assessee had not given the details of the surrendered income. Since the assessee himself has shown additional income, due credit

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately is recorded. Further the assessee in the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s153A, the assessee had shown undisclosed income of Rs.4,50,000/-. The assessee had not given the details of the surrendered income. Since the assessee himself has shown additional income, due credit

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately is recorded. Further the assessee in the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s153A, the assessee had shown undisclosed income of Rs.4,50,000/-. The assessee had not given the details of the surrendered income. Since the assessee himself has shown additional income, due credit

PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,MHOW vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

business of developing, operation and Page 1 of 21 Prakash Asphalting and Toll Highways (India) Limited ITA No. 720/Ind/2024 – AY 2014-15 maintenance of infrastructure projects of roads and bridges, toll collection contracts, etc. A search u/s 132 was carried on one “PATH Group” including assessee on 27.08.2014. Pursuant to search action, the assessments

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated in the matter.” 27. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the main contention of the assessee was as under: “5.01 Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that even if the rental income of the appellant is computed under Chapter IV-C of the Act being