M/S SIDDHULA;L,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that in the case of assessee-individual, the AO received an information that the assessee sold a land on 06.09.2010 for Rs. 35,00,000/-, having stamps valuation of Rs. 48,05,000/- and earned capital gain. Accordingly, to assess the same, the AO issued

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito, Kalra, 1(1), बनाम/ Agar Road, Ujjain Ganesh Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

exemption claimed u/s 54 by the assessee is hereby disallowed and addition of Rs. 36,37,171/- is being made. Since, the assessee furnished inaccurate particular of income penalty u/s 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE vs. SEWA SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT TILLOR KHURAD, INDORE

exemption to Credit Co-\noperative Societies. The legislative intend behind these\nprovisions is to curb unaccounted cash transactions and the\nassessee's reliance on the banking analogy is legally\nunsustainable. The assessee's plea of a bonafide belief that\nSection 269SS/269T were in applicable lacks merit. The Tax\nAuditor's explicit mention of the violation negates any claim of\nbonafide

SAROJ GUPTA,UJJAIN vs. ITO NFAC, LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL OFFICE UJJAIN

Exemption) ITA No.\n274/Pun/2023 order dated 14.08.2023. Accordingly, Ld. AR contended\nthat the penalty imposed by AO in present case u/s 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL vs. MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI ANUSUCHIT JATI VITT EVAM VIKAS NIGAM, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

u/s 10(26B) has never surfaced before AO. But it is a fact that\nthe assessee claimed carry forward of loss of Rs.25,32,12,148/- in the\nrevised return and the AO reduced the same to Rs.19,82,54,510/- in\nasesment order and in that circumstance, the AO imposed penalty.\nTherefore, the penalty imposed by AO is proper

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

271(1)(c) [i.e. penalty qua the addition made in assessment-order] that the assessee consulted his counsel and became aware of the impugned order having been passed by CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, according to the consultation given by counsel, the appeal fee was paid on 24.01.2025 and present appeal was filed without further delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A),NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

271(1)(c) [i.e. penalty qua the addition made in assessment-order] that the assessee consulted his counsel and became aware of the impugned order having been passed by CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, according to the consultation given by counsel, the appeal fee was paid on 24.01.2025 and present appeal was filed without further delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted

RAJARAM PATIDAR,BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(4), HOSHANGABAD ROAD

Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Rajaram Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.112, Near Ram Lila 2(4), Maidan, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Ward No. 52-53, Bhopal Vs. Misrod (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Bkapp7594R Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable qua the relief already granted by ITAT in quantum-proceeding because the very basis of imposition of penalty has collapsed to that extent. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete penalty to that extent. This deletion is, however, subject to the rider that if the revenue is in further appeal before High Court

VIMALA DEVI BAHETI,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeals are allowed

u/s 271F is not\nattracted. Therefore, we delete the penalty imposed by AO. The assessee\nsucceeds in this appeal.\n7. Resultantly, these appeals are allowed.\nOrder pronounced in open court on 28/11/2025\nSd/-\n(PARESH M. JOSHI)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER\nSd/-\n(B.M. BIYANI)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nIndore\nदिनांक/Dated : 28/11/2025\nPatel/Sr. PS\nCopies to: (1) The appellant\n(2)\nThe respondent

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

u/s 11 of 1961 Act and taxed the same u/e 115BBC of 1961 Act. II 16 Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 22-03-2013 passed by the DDIT (Exemption)-l(l) i.e. the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT (AJ who rejected the appeal of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

u/s 11 of 1961 Act and taxed the same u/e 115BBC of 1961 Act. II 16 Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 22-03-2013 passed by the DDIT (Exemption)-l(l) i.e. the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT (AJ who rejected the appeal of the assessee

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

exemption u/s 54B to the investment made by assessee in new land within the prescribed time-limit of section 54B, which is very much legal in accordance with the mandate of section 54B. Ld. DR submitted that the AO has perfectly dealt with both of these aspects and thereafter taxed the capital-gain which remained taxable as per provisions

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

exemption u/s 54B to the investment made by assessee in new land within the prescribed time-limit of section 54B, which is very much legal in accordance with the mandate of section 54B. Ld. DR submitted that the AO has perfectly dealt with both of these aspects and thereafter taxed the capital-gain which remained taxable as per provisions

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are\ninitiated separately.\nAddition Rs.2,31,917/-\n12. Exempt income of Rs.65

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

exemption of Rs.\n10,50,000/- u/s 54. For the sake of clarity, the computation shown by the\nassessee in her ITR is reproduced as under-\nHarpreet Kaur\nITA No. 730/Ind/2024 – AY 2009-10\nLong Term Capital Gain (Other than Securities (General)\nResidential Property\nSale consideration (Date of Transfer 05/02/09) Rs.1321000/-\nSale Value U/s 50C\nRs.1321000/-\nFull Value of consideration

SARSWATI VIDHYA PRATISHTHAN M.P ,BHUPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately.” 5.1 Thus, it is clear that the AO has disallowed the claim primarily on two grounds, that this expenditure is incurred for organizing the Shivir/celebration and not proportionate to the normal expenditure incurred by the assessee on providing education to the students. The second objection

KISHORE SEWANI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Kishore Sewani, Ito-1(4) बनाम/ House No.33, Parika Bhopal Vs. Society, Phase-1, Chunabhatti, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Ankps8260M Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025

penalty-order dated 07.03.2024 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the assessee-individual filed return of AY 2013-14 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,30,446/- by way of share in profit and remuneration from partnership firms, rental income from house property

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

271(1) (c) of the IT are initiated separately for A.Ys 2015-16.” 24. It is pertinent to note that in the statement recorded u/s 134 of the Act and to answer the Question No.22, the assessee has stated that the details in this diary are related to election management activities as well as election management expenditure. The statement