SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

M/S. KRISHNA SOYA PRODUCTS PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

loss and allowed to carry forward of the same the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) could not be levied. Where

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

forward the unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable as per the Explanation 4(b) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Having regard to the above and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

forward the unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable as per the Explanation 4(b) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Having regard to the above and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning

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

forward losses and reduced the sameto Rs. 46,88,290/-. Accordingly, the AO 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

M/S. BHOPAL VIKAS PRADHIKARAN,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act when there was neither concealment nor furnishing of the inaccurate particulars of income.” Bhopal Vikas Pradhikaran 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. IDEAL ASHIYANA PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-2(1) M/S Ideal Ashiyana Indore Private Ltd., Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aadci 0029 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Final Hearing 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.12.2022

loss of Rs. 81,46,749/-, which was subjected to scrutiny- assessment by Ld. AO and statutory notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued from time to time which were duly complied with by assessee. Finally, Ld. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 29.03.2016 at a total income of Rs. 3,28,62,646/- after making

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 (1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. ENTERTAINMENT AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

forward of unabsorbed depreciation at Rs. 1,55,95,905/-. In the P&L account of the assessee total receipts showed at Rs.67,06,781/- consisting of rental receipts of Rs.7,95,526/- common area maintenance of Rs. 32,53,311/-, HVAC charges of Rs.13,04,535/- and interest income of Rs.13,53,409/-. After deducting expenses of Rs.2

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

forward of unabsorbed depreciation at Rs. 1,55,95,905/-. In the P&L account of the assessee total receipts showed at Rs.67,06,781/- consisting of rental receipts of Rs.7,95,526/- common area maintenance of Rs. 32,53,311/-, HVAC charges of Rs.13,04,535/- and interest income of Rs.13,53,409/-. After deducting expenses of Rs.2

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

forward of unabsorbed depreciation at Rs. 1,55,95,905/-. In the P&L account of the assessee total receipts showed at Rs.67,06,781/- consisting of rental receipts of Rs.7,95,526/- common area maintenance of Rs. 32,53,311/-, HVAC charges of Rs.13,04,535/- and interest income of Rs.13,53,409/-. After deducting expenses of Rs.2

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

forward of unabsorbed depreciation at Rs. 1,55,95,905/-. In the P&L account of the assessee total receipts showed at Rs.67,06,781/- consisting of rental receipts of Rs.7,95,526/- common area maintenance of Rs. 32,53,311/-, HVAC charges of Rs.13,04,535/- and interest income of Rs.13,53,409/-. After deducting expenses of Rs.2

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 also initiated on this issue. Addition Rs.2,73,105/- 7. During first appellate proceeding, the assessee submitted a detailed reply to Ld. CIT(A) which is noted by Ld. CIT(A) in his appeal-order. However, the assessee did not find any favour from

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 also initiated on this issue. Addition Rs.1,99,847/- Page 10 of 21 Shri Rupesh Vyas Assessment year 2014-15 7. During first appellate proceeding, the assessee submitted a detailed reply to Ld. CIT(A) which is noted by Ld. CIT(A) in his appeal-order. However

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

u/s. 263, that the impugned receipts are under the nomenclature of "charges" and that such "charges" are for facilitating specific services rendered" by the to the customers/consumers. The assessee strongly denies such observations, which are false & baseless and unsupported. The definition of "charges" in the said Notification are "recovery of the costs and expenses towards the laying of electric lines

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

u/s. 263, that the impugned receipts are under the nomenclature of "charges" and that such "charges" are for facilitating specific services rendered" by the to the customers/consumers. The assessee strongly denies such observations, which are false & baseless and unsupported. The definition of "charges" in the said Notification are "recovery of the costs and expenses towards the laying of electric lines

THE DY CIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S M.P. PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD., INDORE

In the result, All the four appeals of the revenue and one cross appeal of the assessee are dismissed

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

u/s. 263, that the impugned receipts are under the nomenclature of "charges" and that such "charges" are for facilitating specific services rendered" by the to the customers/consumers. The assessee strongly denies such observations, which are false & baseless and unsupported. The definition of "charges" in the said Notification are "recovery of the costs and expenses towards the laying of electric lines