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

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

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

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d). The AO\nhas imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the assessment-year for\nassessee's failure to comply with the notice issued by AO u/s 142(1).\n8. Having heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the\nassessee has remained non-compliant to the notices issued

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d). The AO\nhas imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the assessment-year for\nassessee's failure to comply with the notice issued by AO u/s 142(1).\n8.\nHaving heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the\nassessee has remained non-compliant to the notices issued

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d). The AO\nhas imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the assessment-year for\nassessee's failure to comply with the notice issued by AO u/s 142(1).\n8.\nHaving heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the\nassessee has remained non-compliant to the notices issued

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d). The AO\nhas imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the assessment-year for\nassessee's failure to comply with the notice issued by AO u/s 142(1).\nHaving heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the\nassessee has remained non-compliant to the notices issued by AO without

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d). The AO\nhas imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the assessment-year for\nassessee's failure to comply with the notice issued by AO u/s 142(1).\n8. Having heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the\nassessee has remained non-compliant to the notices issued

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d). The AO\nhas imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the assessment-year for\nassessee's failure to comply with the notice issued by AO u/s 142(1).\n8. Having heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the\nassessee has remained non-compliant to the notices issued

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d). The AO\nhas imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the assessment-year for\nassessee's failure to comply with the notice issued by AO u/s 142(1).\n8. Having heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the\nassessee has remained non-compliant to the notices issued

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

133A is treated as deemed income u/s 69B/69A of the I.T.Act, 1961 and to be taxed as per provisions of secretion 115BBE of the I.T.Act, 1961. Penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC is also initiated separately. 6. The AO has applied the provision of section 69B of the Act for want of any supporting evidence regarding source of excess stock and nature

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act\r\n\r\n2.\r\nSince these appeals relate to same assessee/appellant and same\r\nassessment-years, they were heard together at the request of parties and\r\nare being disposed of by this common order. We first take up Quantum-\r\nAppeals and thereafter Penalty-Appeals

KHOZEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the rate of 30%. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of (Addition Rs.23,00,000/-income.” 2.2 That the Assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s Page 3 of 13 Khojema Bohra ITA No. 812 & 814/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2014-15

KHOJEMA BOHRA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

Appeals are allowed

section 115BBE of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 at the rate of 30%. Penalty proceedings\nu/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of (Addition Rs.23,00,000/-income.”\n2.2 That the Assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid\n\"Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s\nPage 3 of 13\nKhojema Bohra\nITA No. 812 & 814/Ind/2024

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

penalties were imposed by NMCE on these brokers. It is the case of the appellant that no default was pointed out by the AO in the contract notes or the transactions of the appellant with these brokers. It is also vehemently contended that during the survey conducted upon the appellant by the Ahmedabad Investigation Wing along with other commodity traders

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

penalties were imposed by NMCE on these brokers. It is the case of the appellant that no default was pointed out by the AO in the contract notes or the transactions of the appellant with these brokers. It is also vehemently contended that during the survey conducted upon the appellant by the Ahmedabad Investigation Wing along with other commodity traders