PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1)- BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed, penalty is\ndeleted

271(1)(c) is being initiated separately.\"\n2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid\n"Impugned Penalty Order” dated 31.03.2017 prefers the\nfirst appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by\nthe “Impugned Order” has dismissed the first appeal of the\nassessee on the ground & reasons stated therein. The core\ngrounds & reasons

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

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

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

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

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

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

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

Section 249(3) of the Act as discussed supra. 7. In the result, appellant appeal against the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of AY 2014-15 dated 23.03.2022 is dismissed. 2.5 The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the form

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

Section 249(3) of the Act as discussed supra. 7. In the result, appellant appeal against the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of AY 2014-15 dated 23.03.2022 is dismissed. 2.5 The assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the form

SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR, INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR, INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR, INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

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

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

3,03,88,385/-. Thus, the addition to gross profit comes to Rs. 2,96,44,454/-. I am satisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed its income therefore 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

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

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

3,03,88,385/-. Thus, the addition to gross profit comes to Rs. 2,96,44,454/-. I am satisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed its income therefore 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

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

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

3,03,88,385/-. Thus, the addition to gross profit comes to Rs. 2,96,44,454/-. I am satisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed its income therefore 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

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