SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

u/s 271(1) (c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the ‘Assessee’ were found to be correct. The M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 20 matter ultimately reached

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

u/s 271(1) (c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the ‘Assessee’ were found to be correct. The M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 20 matter ultimately reached

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

u/s 271(1) (c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the ‘Assessee’ were found to be correct. The M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 20 matter ultimately reached

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

u/s 271(1) (c) was imposed on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was held to be illegally imposed by the tribunal since factual details of income furnished by the ‘Assessee’ were found to be correct. The M.P. State Tourism and others (ITA No.2/Ind/2015 and others) 20 matter ultimately reached

SHRIMATI SHASHI YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

penalty imposed by the Ld. A.O. u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a sum of Rs. 1250000/- on account of additions made for treating the transactions of current in nature as loan to the assessee by M/s SSP Enterprises P Ltd and consequently treated the same as deemed dividend

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

deemed dividend’ u/s 2(22)(e) and it is a settled law that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

deemed dividend’ u/s 2(22)(e) and it is a settled law that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,ANDHERI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

deemed dividend’ u/s 2(22)(e) and it is a settled law that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

deemed dividend’ u/s 2(22)(e) and it is a settled law that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

u/s India pharmaceuticals\nreported in [1980]123ITR 874[MP] & laid emphasis on\nfollowing:-\n\"It was contended by learned counsel appearing for the revenue that\nproceedings for assessment under s. 143 of the Act are proceedings\nwhere the ITO had to apply his mind to the circumstances which would\nattract the provisions contained in s. 271

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income. It is clear from the above referred provisions that if any income for which the assessee is unable to provide any explanation about the nature and its source then the same could be offered to tax as unexplained income which

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income. It is clear from the above referred provisions that if any income for which the assessee is unable to provide any explanation about the nature and its source then the same could be offered to tax as unexplained income which

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

deemed to be the income of the assessee shall not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income. It is clear from the above referred provisions that if any income for which the assessee is unable to provide any explanation about the nature and its source then the same could be offered to tax as unexplained income which

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

dividend income under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A to the tune of Rs.8,83,383/- and personal expenses of Rs.6,18,746/-. Thus, the total income was assessed at Rs 40,15,16,900/-, upon making addition of Rs.15,02,129/- and penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act was initiated by issuing notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271D

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

271(1)(c) of the 'Act' are\ninitiated separately. After rejection of claim LTCG as claimed by the assessee\nis being computed separately in forthcoming paras of the body of the\nassessment order.\nAddition - Rs.8,61,000/-.\n3. Computation of LTCG:\nDescription\nAmount\nComputation\nFull\nvalue of Consideration\n(sale\nRs.410000/-\nconsideration received in lieu of sale of land\nlocated

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

271(1)(c) without considering the fact that transfer pricing adjustment has been made on account of difference of opinion, interpretation of provisions of law, etc. and not due to any concealment of or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Appellant.” 2. The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal vide application dated 14th August