THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the I..T. Act are initiated separately. 11. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions:- Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 The facts of the case are that the appellant is a society which was established on 04.12.1996 basically for development of downtrodden/poor people of society

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the I..T. Act are initiated separately. 11. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions:- Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 The facts of the case are that the appellant is a society which was established on 04.12.1996 basically for development of downtrodden/poor people of society

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. Addition : Rs. 2,96,44,454/-.” Thus, for the AY 2012-13, the AO made addition of Rs. 51,20,79,310/- in gold business and Rs. 2,96,44,454/- in silver business. With identical observations, the AO also made additions of varying amounts

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. Addition : Rs. 2,96,44,454/-.” Thus, for the AY 2012-13, the AO made addition of Rs. 51,20,79,310/- in gold business and Rs. 2,96,44,454/- in silver business. With identical observations, the AO also made additions of varying amounts

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. Addition : Rs. 2,96,44,454/-.” Thus, for the AY 2012-13, the AO made addition of Rs. 51,20,79,310/- in gold business and Rs. 2,96,44,454/- in silver business. With identical observations, the AO also made additions of varying amounts

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

145(2) could not be\ninvoked,".\nCIT vs. Anand Kumar\nModi (2015) 2 ITJ\nOnline 668\n(Jharkhand)\nHeld that “addition made after rejecting books\nmaintained by assessee should be deleted when\nall quantitative details were available in hooks\nof account and account and accounts were regularly\nmaintained”.\nPr. Commissioner of\nIncome tax vs. Forum\nSales Pvt. Ltd (2024)\n468

THE ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. SOUMYA HOMES P LTD , BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2 Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd. T-4 City Centre, Zone-1 Bhopal Vs. M.P. Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aafcs 3503 C Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ashish Goyal Ar Date Of Hearing 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04 .08.2023

section u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2007-08 to 2013- 14 and based on the said composite assessment order for the block of six years the AO extra-polated the amount of suppressed sale in the same ratio as it was taken while passing the assessment order u/s 153A of the Act. The relevant part of the assessment order is as under

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

Appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical\npurpose

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was\npassed on or about 26.03.2025 and the Income Tax\nDepartment employee approached the assessee for deposit\nof demand then only the assessee came to know about the\nex-parte passing of order of Ld. CIT(A). It is only thereafter\nimmediately with the help of old counsel the present appeal

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

145/- in form of excess stock, Rs. 52,86,831/-in form of sales and not recorded in its regular books of accounts and without supporting documentary evidences as detected at the time of survey u/s 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