M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

133(6) of the Act were returned with remark “not found”. The A.O. thus made addition of entire amount of Rs.75 lakhs in the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who sustained the addition. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

133(6) of the Act were returned with remark “not found”. The A.O. thus made addition of entire amount of Rs.75 lakhs in the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who sustained the addition. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

133(6) of the Act were returned with remark “not found”. The A.O. thus made addition of entire amount of Rs.75 lakhs in the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who sustained the addition. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

133(6) of the Act were returned with remark “not found”. The A.O. thus made addition of entire amount of Rs.75 lakhs in the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who sustained the addition. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

133(6) of the Act were returned with remark “not found”. The A.O. thus made addition of entire amount of Rs.75 lakhs in the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who sustained the addition. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

133(6) of the Act were returned with remark “not found”. The A.O. thus made addition of entire amount of Rs.75 lakhs in the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who sustained the addition. Against the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal

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

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

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

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

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

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

SACHCHIDANAND TRIPATHI ,BHOPAL vs. ITO 5(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15 Sachchidanand Tripati Ito 5(2) Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aampt3788N Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri Amit Soni, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.12.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Bhopal Dated 01.05.2019 Which Are Arising Out Of The Order U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act 1961(In Short The ‘Act’) Dated 26.05.2017 Framed By Ito-5(2) Bhopal.

133(6) of the Act. On receiving information it was observed that total sales made by the assessee on delivery based transaction was Rs.3,13,81,410/- which exceeded the limit of turnover of Rs. 1 cr. provided u/s 44AB of the Act which requires the assessee to get its book of accounts audited. During the course of Sachchidanand Tripathi

M/S MODERN LABORATARIES PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 135/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 Dy. Cit, Vs. M/S.Modern Laboratories 3(1), Pvt.Ltd., Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. -: 3 :- Modern Laboratories P.Ltd., Indore. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,19,895/- whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 135/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 Dy. Cit, Vs. M/S.Modern Laboratories 3(1), Pvt.Ltd., Indore. Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. -: 3 :- Modern Laboratories P.Ltd., Indore. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,19,895/- whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the 'Act' are initiated separately. After rejection of claim LTCG as claimed by the assessee is being computed separately in forthcoming paras of the body of the assessment order. Addition - Rs.8,61,000/-. 3. Computation of LTCG: Description Amount Computation Full value of Consideration (sale Rs.410000/- consideration received in lieu of sale

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

VINITA RAHEJA,INDORE vs. ITO-2(4), INDORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assesse arising the assessment order as well as penalty order are allowed

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

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) respectively for A.Y.2010-11. In the quantum appeal the assessee has raised following grounds: “1. The learned Income Tax Commissioner ITANo.512 & 513/Ind/2023 Vinita Raheja (A) had not considered all produced documents at appeal stage as (1) NSE profit and loss a/c (2)financial transition statement (3) NSE profit and loss future & option

VINITA RAHEJA,INDORE vs. ITO-2(4), INDORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assesse arising the assessment order as well as penalty order are allowed

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

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) respectively for A.Y.2010-11. In the quantum appeal the assessee has raised following grounds: “1. The learned Income Tax Commissioner ITANo.512 & 513/Ind/2023 Vinita Raheja (A) had not considered all produced documents at appeal stage as (1) NSE profit and loss a/c (2)financial transition statement (3) NSE profit and loss future & option

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

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

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

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount