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 ACIT 5(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 & 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

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

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

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

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

6. On the basis of such information, a show cause notice u/s\n148A (b) dt. 31.03.2022 was issued to the assessee. In response\nto this notice, assessee submitted reply on 02.04.2022.\nConsidering the reply of assessee, order u/s 148A(d) was passed\non 13.04.2022. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax\nAct, dt. 13.04.2022 along with order u/s 148A

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

6) were issued by the AO to the brokers who duly complied with the same and represented their matters before the then AO. It is further submitted by the appellant that the entire discussion made by the AO in the reassessment order is with respect to brokers namely S. N. Commodities, Shubhlaxmi Commodities, Subhlamxi Traders and Sairam Commodities and there

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

6) were issued by the AO to the brokers who duly complied with the same and represented their matters before the then AO. It is further submitted by the appellant that the entire discussion made by the AO in the reassessment order is with respect to brokers namely S. N. Commodities, Shubhlaxmi Commodities, Subhlamxi Traders and Sairam Commodities and there

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

6) were issued by the AO to the brokers who duly complied with the same and represented their matters before the then AO. It is further submitted by the appellant that the entire discussion made by the AO in the reassessment order is with respect to brokers namely S. N. Commodities, Shubhlaxmi Commodities, Subhlamxi Traders and Sairam Commodities and there

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

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

133(6) of\nthe 'Act' as well as while making statement u/s 131 of the 'Act'\nalthough it was not found fully convincible but from the facts so\nsurfaced it is evident that the buyer has not adequate source of fund\nto buy the property even at the consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. Hence,\nby no stretch of imagination

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.

6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Assessee’s sole grievance in this appeal is challenging the 3 Sachchidanand Tripathi finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Act for not getting books of account audited u/s 44AB of the Act. We note that

SOURABH SHARMA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, DELHI

The appeal of the assesse is allowed\nfor statistical purpose

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) of the\nIncome Tax Act is initiated separately\".\n2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid\n\"impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A\nof the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order\" has\ndismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on the grounds and\nreasons stated

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

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

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