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

271(a)(b)(c)(d).\nUnder section 271AAC(1) an obligation is casted where\nincome determined includes any income referred to in\nsection 68,69,69A,69B, 69C, 69D to pay penalty is addition\nto tax payable u/s 115BBE. While the actual proceeding\nu/s 271AAC(1) later on may be separate & independent but\nwhile determining such income

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE ITARSI, BHOPAL vs. SHRI AMIT KUMAR AGRAWAL , HOSHANGABAD

In the result, legal ground raised in Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle- Shri Amit Kumar Agrawal C/O Prop. बनाम/

133A of the Act was conducted on 26.10.2010. Surrender toward excess stock and excess cash, totalling to Rs.1,08,00,736/- was made during the course of survey. The same was declared as undisclosed income in the income tax return filed on 25.09.2011. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 28.02.2014, accepting the income shown

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. JAVA BUILDERS PVT LTD(FORMERLY JAVA FOODS PVT LTD), INDORE

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Java Builders Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax (Central)-2 (Formerly Java Foods Pvt. Ltd.), 16, Khajarana Square, बनाम/ Ghanshyam Castle, Vs. Opposite Subh Labh, Indore (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aaccj5636L Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

section 271(1)(c) in the notice issued for imposing penalty u/s 271AAB. He has taken into account the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and ITAT, Indore and accordingly held that initiation of penalty without issuance of a proper notice is not valid and not sustainable. This very issue was again decided in favour

ITO-1, ITARSI vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR SONI, ITARSI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Years: 2011-12 Ito-1

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises on 26.10.2010. The assessee declared undisclosed income of Shri Anil Kumar Soni. ITANo.334/Ind/2020 Rs.2,15,21,144/- which consisted of excess stock of Rs.2,14,96,454/- and excess cash of Rs.24,690/-. This survey was conducted during F.Y. 2010-11 (A.Y. 2011-12). Assessee filed the return of income

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), UJJAIN (STATIONED AT INDORE), UJJAIN vs. M/S. JPJ EXIM (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

section 271(l)(c) of the Act. It was set aside by CIT(Appeals) as also by Tribunal holding that in the absence of any factual finding that the loans taken by the assessee were bogus, no penalty can be imposed. 4.1.6 It has been held by Hon'ble M.P. High Court which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme

THE ACIT (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee made submissions in response to the notice but the Ld. AO rejected those submissions and passed order on 27.06.2019 imposing a penalty of Rs. 60,00,000/- for concealing the particulars of income of Rs. 1,43,65,000/-. Being aggrieved by this

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act not initiating action for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for claiming against interest expenditure of Rs.39,83,844/-. (b) Break up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- not obtained. (c) Not mentioning the link source of Rs. 7 crores surrendered with the Vyapam case. (d) Not calling information from various agencies involved

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act not initiating action for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for claiming against interest expenditure of Rs.39,83,844/-. (b) Break up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- not obtained. (c) Not mentioning the link source of Rs. 7 crores surrendered with the Vyapam case. (d) Not calling information from various agencies involved

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act not initiating action for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for claiming against interest expenditure of Rs.39,83,844/-. (b) Break up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- not obtained. (c) Not mentioning the link source of Rs. 7 crores surrendered with the Vyapam case. (d) Not calling information from various agencies involved

M/S. ALANKAR JEWELLERS ,BETUL vs. DCIT ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2016-17

271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas no occasion to initiate penalty. 7. The appellant, carves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of gold, silver jewellery

AJIT LALWANI ,INDORE vs. ACIT (TDS) , INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeals in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

271 CA was barred by limitation. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and I or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before final hearing, if necessity so arises. 2. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal for both the years but the effective grounds relates

AJIT LALWANI,INDORE vs. ADD.CIT(A), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeals in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

271 CA was barred by limitation. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and I or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before final hearing, if necessity so arises. 2. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal for both the years but the effective grounds relates

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133A conducted on 21/08/2009 were duly offered for taxation in Profit and Loss account as “Income from Hospital”.” Thus, the same was shown as income from hospital and same fact was not denied by the ld CIT(A). No other source from where the same could have been earned was pointed by the ld CIT(A). The appellant relies

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133A conducted on 21/08/2009 were duly offered for taxation in Profit and Loss account as “Income from Hospital”.” Thus, the same was shown as income from hospital and same fact was not denied by the ld CIT(A). No other source from where the same could have been earned was pointed by the ld CIT(A). The appellant relies

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133A conducted on 21/08/2009 were duly offered for taxation in Profit and Loss account as “Income from Hospital”.” Thus, the same was shown as income from hospital and same fact was not denied by the ld CIT(A). No other source from where the same could have been earned was pointed by the ld CIT(A). The appellant relies