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

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

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

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.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)9c) are also initiated.” 3. Before the ld.CIT(A), the appellant filed following written submissions: With regard to the Income Tax Appeal in the case of our above named client company for the Assessment Year 2013-14, we have to submit as under:- Ground No. 1 1.1 This ground relate to deemed addition

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

Appeals are dismissed

271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule is ended

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

Appeals are dismissed

271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule is ended

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are\ninitiated separately.\nAddition Rs.2,31,917/-\n12. Exempt income of Rs.65,24,628/- in respect of sale of the land\nsituated at village Palakhedi, Tehsil Hatod\nIt reveals that assessee has claimed exempt income from short term\ncapital gain of Rs.65,24,628/- on selling of land situated at village

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

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a return of income on 23.05.2016 declaring total income of ₹43,26,048/-. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer examined unsecured loans aggregating to ₹90,00,000/- received from six persons of the Khanduja family. Though the assessee furnished confirmations, PAN details and bank statements of the lenders, the Assessing

JASTEJ GOROWARA,BHOPAL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a return of income on 23.05.2016 declaring total income of ₹43,26,048/-. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer examined unsecured loans aggregating to ₹90,00,000/- received from six persons of the Khanduja family. Though the assessee furnished confirmations, PAN details and bank statements of the lenders, the Assessing

RAJESH KUMAR SAXENA,PACHORE RAJGARH vs. ITO RAJGARH, RAJGARJ MP

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and\nthat too when the officers of the department came for recovery.\nIn brief the Ld. AR submitted that the "impugned order” is an\nex-parte order in respect of which no notices as mentioned on\ninternal page 3 to 4 of “impugned order” were ever received by\nhim

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

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