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

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, 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

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. SHRI SANJAY BAGDI, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Sanjay Bagdi, Income Tax – 2(1), Vs. 173 Alakhdham Nagar, Ujjain Ujjain (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Ahcpb6349L Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri S.S. Deshpande & Bhavesh Netkar,Cas Date Of Hearing 01.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2018 O R D E R

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the ‘Act’ are being initiated separately on this issue. – Addition Rs.39,10,039/-“ 12. Now perusal of the finding of Ld.A.O vis-à-vis Section 145(3

SHRI SANJAY SOMANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for all

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbefore Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena, Accountant & Shri O.P.Meena & Shri O.P.Meena, Accountant & Shri O.P.Meenamember Member

section 40A(3) of the Act. Thus, the said amount was treated as Shri Sanjay Somani/ I.T.A. No.757&758/Ind/2014/AY:03-04&05-06 & I.T.A. No. 236/Ind/2016/AY04-06 Page 5 of 11 invested in purchases from undisclosed sources. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated in respect of above addition. In reply to penalty show cause notice