SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and not under the purview of section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The show cause notice thus suffers from a fatal error which is not curable under section 292BB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and henceforth, penalty of Rs. 6,83,498/- as levied under section 271AAB

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

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

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

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

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

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

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

u/s 271AAA of the Act CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 ; CIT v. Radha KishanGoel [2005] 278 ITR 454, followed. (Para 16)" 4.02 Your Honour, the provisions of section 271AAA are pari materia with that of erstwhile Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act having its application for grant of immunity from penalty under

SAIPHIA TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) , NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2015-16 Saiphia Technology Private Nfac Limited, Delhi 1St Floor Ankit Plaza, बनाम/ Kolar Road, Vs. Near Nayapura Bus Stop, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aancs1814Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2025

271(1)(c) imposing a penalty of Rs. 12,00,000/-. Aggrieved by penalty-order, the assessee filed first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. Page 2 of 5 Saiphia Tecnology Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 172/Ind/2024 – AY 2015-16 3. In so far as the first

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 09.08.2019. 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate developer and builder. On 06.08.2013, a survey u/s. 133A was carried out at the premises and Buidling Projects run by the assessee-company. Subsequently

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 09.08.2019. 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate developer and builder. On 06.08.2013, a survey u/s. 133A was carried out at the premises and Buidling Projects run by the assessee-company. Subsequently

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. TPA. No. 265/Ind/2015: REVENUE`s APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 Ground:No.1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon`ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai was justified in deletion

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. TPA. No. 265/Ind/2015: REVENUE`s APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 Ground:No.1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon`ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai was justified in deletion

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. TPA. No. 265/Ind/2015: REVENUE`s APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 Ground:No.1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon`ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai was justified in deletion

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. TPA. No. 265/Ind/2015: REVENUE`s APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 Ground:No.1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon`ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai was justified in deletion

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. Addition : Rs. 2,96,44,454/-.” Thus, for the AY 2012-13, the AO made addition of Rs. 51,20,79,310/- in gold business and Rs. 2,96,44,454/- in silver business. With identical observations, the AO also made additions of varying amounts

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. Addition : Rs. 2,96,44,454/-.” Thus, for the AY 2012-13, the AO made addition of Rs. 51,20,79,310/- in gold business and Rs. 2,96,44,454/- in silver business. With identical observations, the AO also made additions of varying amounts