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

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

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

u/s 263 of the Act do not stand for as a basis for invoking provisions u/s 263 of the Act. ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari 41. In the instant case, the Learned Assessing officer has raised number of queries regarding the issues now sought to be revised by the CIT which were replied by the assessee through detailed submissions

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

u/s 263 of the Act do not stand for as a basis for invoking provisions u/s 263 of the Act. ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari 41. In the instant case, the Learned Assessing officer has raised number of queries regarding the issues now sought to be revised by the CIT which were replied by the assessee through detailed submissions

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

u/s 263 of the Act do not stand for as a basis for invoking provisions u/s 263 of the Act. ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari 41. In the instant case, the Learned Assessing officer has raised number of queries regarding the issues now sought to be revised by the CIT which were replied by the assessee through detailed submissions

OM SHANTI MOTORS,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL - (FRONT OF MAILDA MILL)

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiit(Ss)A Nos.73 To 79/Ind/2024 (Ays: 2009-10 To 2015-16) &

271(1)(c) 14 614/Ind/2024 2015-16 23.07.2024 CIT(A)- 3, Bhopal Penalty- order dated 22.03.2019 JCIT(OSD)- Central-1, Bhopal Penalty u/s 271AAB 15 615/Ind/2024 to 2010-11 2015-16 23.07.2024 CIT(A)- 3, Bhopal Penalty- order dated 28.02.2018 JCIT, Central Range, Bhopal Penalty u/s 271D & 25 625/Ind/2024 271E 2. Since these appeals relates to same assessee; the parties

OM SHANTI MOTORS,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL - (FRONT OF MAILDA MILL)

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiit(Ss)A Nos.73 To 79/Ind/2024 (Ays: 2009-10 To 2015-16) &

271(1)(c) 14 614/Ind/2024 2015-16 23.07.2024 CIT(A)- 3, Bhopal Penalty- order dated 22.03.2019 JCIT(OSD)- Central-1, Bhopal Penalty u/s 271AAB 15 615/Ind/2024 to 25 625/Ind/2024 2010-11 To 2015-16 23.07.2024 CIT(A)- 3, Bhopal Penalty- order dated 28.02.2018 JCIT, Central Range, Bhopal Penalty u/s 271D & 271E 2. Since these appeals relates to same assessee

OM SHANTI MOTORS,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL - (FRONT OF MAILDA MILL)

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiit(Ss)A Nos.73 To 79/Ind/2024 (Ays: 2009-10 To 2015-16) &

271(1)(c) Bhopal 22.03.2019 Bhopal 14 614/Ind/2024 2015-16 23.07.2024 CIT(A)- Penalty- JCIT(OSD)- Penalty u/s 3, order dated Central-1, 271AAB Bhopal 22.03.2019 Bhopal 15 615/Ind/2024 2010-11 23.07.2024 CIT(A)- Penalty- JCIT, Central Penalty u/s to To 3, order dated 28.02.2018 Range, Bhopal 271D & 25 625/Ind/2024 2015-16 Bhopal 271E 2. Since these appeals relates

M/S TRUBA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

127 of the Act dated 07/06/2022 by the CIT(E) does not transfer CIT(E) original jurisdiction related to 12AA/10(23C) to PCIT(C), that the order clearly says transfer of jurisdiction from DCIT(E) to DCIT Central for Coordinated investigation, assessment of the case and for all the other purpose, thus placing reliance on such order and thereon exercising

SHYAM PRATAP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 Shri Shyam Pratap Singh Shekhawat Vs Pr. Cit, Zonal Office, Bhai Bala Chowk, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Noble Enclave, Ludhiana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Acaps0740F Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Advocates Date Of Hearing 22.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2019 O R D E R

2. That under the circumstances, the order u/s 263 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is bad in law because the same was passed for the reason that the Assessing Officer failed to initiate penalty proceedings during assessment proceedings though this basis is not sufficient for setting aside the assessment completed u/s 143(3)/147

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

127 Taxmann.com 735 where a deposit upto Rs. 2.50 lakh was held to be acceptable for homemakers. However, the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the submission of assessee who held that the cash was found with assessee in Jaipur though the assessee belonged to Ratlam. He also held that the CBDT Press Release/Instruction as well as the decision

RANVEER SINGH SURYAWANSHI,DHAR vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiranveer Singh Suryawanshi, Ito, Dhar बनाम/ Datwada Datwade, Vs. Indore, Mp (Pan:Awlps7673N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan,Ca & Ruchira Singhal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

271(1) (c) of the Act, a penalty of Rs. 29,32,874/- was imposed on the assessee. The aforesaid penalty order bears no: - ITBA/PNL/F/271(1) (C)/2024-25/1067563270(1) and that the same is dated 09.08.2024, which is herein after referred to as the “impugned penalty order” 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order” prefers

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated. Addition: Rs. 2,70,15,725/-” 9. During first-appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition by observing and holding thus: “5.1 Ground No.1: Through this ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.2,70,15,725/- on account of current liabilities. The appellant company is a builder

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which