MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

271(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity and the resulting situation

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

271(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity and the resulting situation

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

271(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity and the resulting situation

PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,MHOW vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

penalty proceedings following show cause notice was issued u/s 274 r.w.rt. 271(1)(c) of the Act : M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 OFFICER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE PAN:AADCK9401E TO, M/s. Kalyan Toll Highways Pvt. Ltd., 15/3, Vidhyadeep, Manoramaganj Indore Sir, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL-1, INDORE

penalty u/s. Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed\nautomatically.\n8. That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of\nthe foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary.”\nLd. Ld. AR for assessee opened his arguments by drawing our\nattention to the show-cause notices dated 29.12.2017 issued by AO u/s Section 274\nread

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

139 or\nby such notice, as the case may be, or.......\nhe may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty...……………\"\nIt is clear from this provision that the ITO or the AAC in the course of\nany proceedings under this Act, if he is satisfied about the existence of\nfacts enumerated in sub-cl. (a) quoted above

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

4 of penalty order). For AY 2014-15 under consideration, the assessee filed return of income u/s 139 on Page 3 of 17 M/s. Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan ITA No. 509/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 31.03.2015 declaring a loss of Rs. 5,72,14,721/-. The case of assessee was selected under scrutiny and the AO passed assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

4 of penalty order). For AY 2014-15 under consideration, the assessee filed return of income u/s 139 on Page 3 of 17 M/s. Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan ITA No. 509/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 31.03.2015 declaring a loss of Rs. 5,72,14,721/-. The case of assessee was selected under scrutiny and the AO passed assessment

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the same is\nscanned and re-produced here:\nRiyaz Qureshi\nITA Nos.663 to 665/Ind/2024\nA.Ys.2013-14 to 2015-16\nNOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME\nTAX ACT, 1961\nPAN NO. AADPQ0375P\nTo,\nShri Riyaz Qureshi\n12. MOLANA AZAD MARG, JHABUA\nOffice of the\nIncome Tax Officer

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the same is\nscanned and re-produced here:\nRiyaz Qureshi\nITA Nos.663 to 665/Ind/2024\nA.Ys.2013-14 to 2015-16\nNOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME\nTAX ACT, 1961\nPAN NO. AADPQ0375P\nTo,\nShri Riyaz Qureshi\n12. MOLANA AZAD MARG, JHABUA\nOffice of the\nIncome Tax Officer

SMT. KAVITA SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO-3(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, 112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Arcps6793D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

4 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of the assessee, if the self-assessment tax paid prior to notice issued u/s 148 is taken into consideration then there is no amount remains as tax sought to be evaded and consequently, no penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the same is\nscanned and re-produced here:\nPage 2 of 14\nRiyaz Qureshi\nITA Nos. 663 to 665/Ind/2024\nA.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16\nNOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME\nTAX ACT, 1961\nPAN NO. AADPQ0375P\nTo,\nShri Riyaz Qureshi\n12. MOLANA AZAD MARG, JHABUA\nOffice

SAROJ GUPTA,UJJAIN vs. ITO NFAC, LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL OFFICE UJJAIN

u/s 139(4). Thus, the AO\nhas imposed penalty for deemed concealment of income in terms of\nExplanation 3 to section 271

SEEMA JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

271(1)(C). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellant voluntarily in compliance of section 50 C paid additional tax which did not automatically attract the penalty.” 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed her return of income of relevant AY 2012-13 u/s 139

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) f. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 2.3 Thus, Ld. AR submitted that though in the assessment order u/s. 143(3), the Id.AO did not discuss the said matter however, that would not permit the AO to review the order. In CIT vs Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 (Del.), it was held that even

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) f. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 2.3 Thus, Ld. AR submitted that though in the assessment order u/s. 143(3), the Id.AO did not discuss the said matter however, that would not permit the AO to review the order. In CIT vs Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 (Del.), it was held that even

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

139 taxmann.com 562 (SC) f. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 2.3 Thus, Ld. AR submitted that though in the assessment order u/s. 143(3), the Id.AO did not discuss the said matter however, that would not permit the AO to review the order. In CIT vs Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310 (Del.), it was held that even