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 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 27.12.2007 and 6.3.2012 that the AO has not specifically specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated by him, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act for AY 2014-15 and the same are discussed together as under as involving similar/same facts of case as advanced by the appellant as per law. Further the appellant has filed these two appeals, one each against assessment order and related penalty order of AO of AY 2014-15 with a delay

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act for AY 2014-15 and the same are discussed together as under as involving similar/same facts of case as advanced by the appellant as per law. Further the appellant has filed these two appeals, one each against assessment order and related penalty order of AO of AY 2014-15 with a delay

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) and consulted with a different\ncounsel for filing of appeals in penalty matters that the assessee came to know\nthat the counsel had not filed appeals against impugned orders. Immediately\nthereafter, the assessee arranged to file these appeals on 03.07.2023 alongwith\nappeals in penalty matters. Thus, there is no lethargy or negligence on the part

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

271(1)(c) is a civil liability. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability? 3. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee for claiming of depreciation expense even on those assets whose capital cost has been reimbursed to the assessee

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

271(1)(c) is a civil liability. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability? 3. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee for claiming of depreciation expense even on those assets whose capital cost has been reimbursed to the assessee

SMT. KAVITA SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO-3(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, 112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Arcps6793D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2011-12. 2. There is a delay of 165 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed application for condonation

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

condone the delay of 106 days and admit the appeal and allow the appeal proceeded with for adjudication. 6. Now we shall deal with regular grounds of appeal of the assessee which reads as us under:- 1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-II Indore has erred in confirming penalty

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3.Since the issue for adjudication in these appeals is identical; they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 4. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the asesesee was a director

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act vide order dated 22.06.2018. This order was duly served on the appellant and hence, he filed appeal against this penalty order on 27.07.2018. In the appeal memo, the appellant claimed that the penalty order and demand notice was served on 28.06.2018. 2.3 In spite of receipt of the penalty order, the appellant

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act vide order dated 22.06.2018. This order was duly served on the appellant and hence, he filed appeal against this penalty order on 27.07.2018. In the appeal memo, the appellant claimed that the penalty order and demand notice was served on 28.06.2018. 2.3 In spite of receipt of the penalty order, the appellant

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) and consulted with a different counsel for filing of appeals in penalty matters that the assessee came to know that the counsel had not filed appeals against impugned orders. Immediately thereafter, the assessee Page 6 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 arranged to file these appeals

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) and consulted with a different counsel for filing of appeals in penalty matters that the assessee came to know that the counsel had not filed appeals against impugned orders. Immediately thereafter, the assessee Page 6 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 arranged to file these appeals

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 5. Briefly stated, the background facts leading to present appeals are such that the AO, on the basis of AIR information revealing that the assessee had made cash-deposits in bank a/c, issued notice u/s 148 dated 28.02.2014 to initiate proceeding u/s 147 of the Act. The notice issued by AO u/s

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO-WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 5. Briefly stated, the background facts leading to present appeals are such that the AO, on the basis of AIR information revealing that the assessee had made cash-deposits in bank a/c, issued notice u/s 148 dated 28.02.2014 to initiate proceeding u/s 147 of the Act. The notice issued by AO u/s

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 5. Briefly stated, the background facts leading to present appeals are such that the AO, on the basis of AIR information revealing that the assessee had made cash-deposits in bank a/c, issued notice u/s 148 dated 28.02.2014 to initiate proceeding u/s 147 of the Act. The notice issued by AO u/s

SHREE RAJENDRA SURI SAH SAKH SANTHA MYD,RAJGARH, DHAR vs. THE ITO, DHAR, DHAR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

271(1)(c) 789/Ind/2024 2017-18 Order dated Assessment-order 25.09.2023 157 days Assessment 28.08.2024 dated 22.03.2023 u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 790/Ind/2024 2016-17 Order dated Assessment-order 21.09.2023 1698 days Assessment 28.08.2024 dated 28.12.2018 u/s 143(3) 791/Ind/2024 2017-18 Order dated Penalty-order 23.09.2023 558 days Penalty u/s 28.08.2024 dated 12.02.2022 270A 792/Ind/2024 2018-19 Order dated Penalty