ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

133(6) of the IT Act was issued to all the concerned banks asking\nto furnish the bank statements from the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2019. A notice u/s\n271(1)(b)/ 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated: 30.1.2021 was issued to the\nassessee as he failed to comply with notices u/s 142(1)/143

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

133(6) of the IT Act was issued to all the concerned banks asking\nto furnish the bank statements from the period 01.04.2011 tổ to 31.03.2019. A notice u/s\n271(1)(b)/ 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated: 30.1.2021 was issued to the\nassessee as he failed to comply with notices u/s 142(1)/143

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

133(6) of the IT Act was issued to all the concerned banks asking\nto furnish the bank statements from the period 01.04.2011 tổ to 31.03.2019. A notice u/s\n271(1)(b)/ 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated: 30.1.2021 was issued to the\nassessee as he failed to comply with notices u/s 142(1)/143

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

133(6) of the IT Act was issued to all the concerned banks asking\nto furnish the bank statements from the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2019. A notice u/s\n271(1)(b)/ 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated: 30.1.2021 was issued to the\nassessee as he failed to comply with notices u/s 142(1)/143

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

133(6) of the IT Act was issued to all the concerned banks asking\nto furnish the bank statements from the period 01.04.2011 tổ to 31.03.2019. A notice u/s\n271(1)(b)/ 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated: 30.1.2021 was issued to the\nassessee as he failed to comply with notices u/s 142(1)/143

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

penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the I..T. Act are initiated separately. 11. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions:- Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 The facts of the case are that the appellant is a society which was established on 04.12.1996 basically for development of downtrodden/poor people of society

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

penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the I..T. Act are initiated separately. 11. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions:- Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 The facts of the case are that the appellant is a society which was established on 04.12.1996 basically for development of downtrodden/poor people of society

SHREE TEKCHANDJI MAHARAJ TRUST,UJJAIN vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, UJJAIN

Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) and U/s 271F of the Act was initiated\n5.1. On going through the aforesaid submission of the assessee it\ncan be seen that the assessee has stated that the trust was\nreceiving corpus donations for construction of Dharamshala and\nevidence of the donation and trust registration had been\nsubmitted. However, it can be seen that

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.

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the IT Act are initiated separately for the AY 2013-14.” IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma 19. Thus, it is clear from the order of the A.O that he has made addition on the basis of details furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings

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

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against assessment order dated 15.10.2019 passed u/s 144C r.w. section 143(3) in pursuant to the Directions of DRP dated 26.08.2019 passed u/s 144C(5) for A.Y.2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Cummins

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

d) where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving\nsufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground\nof appeal.\n(2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the Deputy\nCommission (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) records in\nwriting the reasons for its admission

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

d) where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving\nsufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground\nof appeal.\n(2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the Deputy\nCommission (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals) records in\nwriting the reasons for its admission

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

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

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising from assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 and penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) respectively for A.Y.2010-11. In the quantum appeal the assessee has raised following

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

D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising from assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 and penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) respectively for A.Y.2010-11. In the quantum appeal the assessee has raised following

KALPANA GOSWAMI,BHOPAL vs. I.T.O. 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Kalpana Goswami, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.955, Banganga, 1(1), बनाम/ North T.T.Nagar, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Awgpg5729E Assessee By Shri Milind Sharma, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2024

D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 30.06.2023, passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.11.2018, passed by learned ITO, 1(1), Bhopal, [“AO”] u/s 143(3)/147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMEBR: Present appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 01-11-2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ujjain (M.P.) arising out of order dated 22.3.2016 passed by the ITO, Mandsaur under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred