SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

iii) disallowance of interest u/s 37(1) of Rs. 90,33,182/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) qua these disallowances and issued show-cause notice dated 26.12.2018 u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) on the footing that the assessee has ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’. In response, the assessee furnished reply on 18.06.2019. After considering

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

142(1) of the Act issued, the assessee admitted the undisclosed income of Rs. 5,75,000/-. Accordingly addition of Rs. 5,75,000/- was made to the total income for the AY 2014-15. And penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB for the AY 2014-15 was initiated by the Ld. AO on this issue. 2.4 From the seized document

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

142(1)/143(2) of\nthe Income Tax Act 1961. No.\ndated\n*Have concealed the particulars of your Income or\ninaccurate particulars of such Income.\nfurnished\nYou are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.30 A.M./P.M. on\n11/01/2018 And show couse why an order.imposing a penalty on you should not be\nmade under section 271(1

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

Appeals are allowed

142(1)/143(2) of\nthe Income Tax Act 1961. No.\ndated\n*Have concealed the particulars of your Income or\nfurnished\ninaccurate particulars of such Income.\nYou are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.30 A.M./P.M. on\n11/01/2018 And show couse why an order.imposing a penalty on you should not be\nmade under section 271(1

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

142(1)/143(2) of\nthe Income Tax Act 1961. No.\ndated\n*Have concealed the particulars of your Income or\ninaccurate particulars of such Income.\nfurnished\nYou are hereby requested to appear before me at 11.30 A.M./P.M. on\n11/01/2018 And show couse why an order.imposing a penalty on you should not be\nmade under section 271(1

SWAN PETRCHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 271(1)(c) whereas at the most it is a case of furnishing incorrect particulars of income and not concealment of particulars of income. Therefore the Explanation-1 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions: 4 M/s. Swan Petrochemicals Pvt.Ltd (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

penalty levied by the AO, u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified and is liable to be deleted. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Pushpendra Surana, (2014) 264 CTR 204 (Raj). (ii) CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, 241 ITR 124 (MP) (iii) CIT vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., 144 taxmann.com

R.M CHEMICALS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/AIT 4 (1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.R.M. Chemicals Acit , 4(1), Pvt.Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ 74,Jumerati, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7154D Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ca & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2023

iii) Baddi Unit-II. For the relevant AY 2013-14, the assessee filed original return of income on 31.10.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 10,09,23,510/- which was subjected to scrutiny-assessment. While filing return of income, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IC in respect of profit derived from its 2 units, namely Baddi Unit

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

1)(a). 5. Without prejudice, the penalty levied by the Ld. JCIT for F.Y. 2006- 07 is bad in law as no penalty was initiated in the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Page 2 of 12 ITA No.407 to 410/Ind/2018 Bharti Airtel Ltd.. Page 3 of 12 2. The assessee is a telecom service provider engaged

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

1)(a). 5. Without prejudice, the penalty levied by the Ld. JCIT for F.Y. 2006- 07 is bad in law as no penalty was initiated in the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Page 2 of 12 ITA No.407 to 410/Ind/2018 Bharti Airtel Ltd.. Page 3 of 12 2. The assessee is a telecom service provider engaged

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

1)(a). 5. Without prejudice, the penalty levied by the Ld. JCIT for F.Y. 2006- 07 is bad in law as no penalty was initiated in the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Page 2 of 12 ITA No.407 to 410/Ind/2018 Bharti Airtel Ltd.. Page 3 of 12 2. The assessee is a telecom service provider engaged

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT- (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

1)(a). 5. Without prejudice, the penalty levied by the Ld. JCIT for F.Y. 2006- 07 is bad in law as no penalty was initiated in the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Page 2 of 12 ITA No.407 to 410/Ind/2018 Bharti Airtel Ltd.. Page 3 of 12 2. The assessee is a telecom service provider engaged

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

142(1) in response to which the assessee filed\ncertain documents in the form of acknowledgment of return field in response\nto notice u/s 148, computation of total income, sale-deed of property, etc.\nAfter considering submission of assessee, the AO assessed total income at\nRs. 56,55,810/- declared by assessee in the return u/s 148 vide Para

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO-WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

iii) ITA No. 302/Ind/2023 is directed against appeal-order dated 15.09.2022 passed CIT(A) which in turn arise out of penalty-order dated 28.09.2015 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. Since these appeals relate to same assessee and the issued involved are inter-related, they were heard together at the request of parties

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

iii) ITA No. 302/Ind/2023 is directed against appeal-order dated 15.09.2022 passed CIT(A) which in turn arise out of penalty-order dated 28.09.2015 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. Since these appeals relate to same assessee and the issued involved are inter-related, they were heard together at the request of parties

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

iii) ITA No. 302/Ind/2023 is directed against appeal-order dated 15.09.2022 passed CIT(A) which in turn arise out of penalty-order dated 28.09.2015 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. Since these appeals relate to same assessee and the issued involved are inter-related, they were heard together at the request of parties

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

142 (Mag.) 7.1 Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that even otherwise when the repayment was through RTGS the same is through banking channel and cannot be held as a violation of section 269T of the Act. He has pointed out that this mode of payment was included subsequently vide amendment however, it is only a technical and venial breach

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

142 (Mag.) 7.1 Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that even otherwise when the repayment was through RTGS the same is through banking channel and cannot be held as a violation of section 269T of the Act. He has pointed out that this mode of payment was included subsequently vide amendment however, it is only a technical and venial breach