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

147 and during proceeding of re-assessment disallowed assessee’s claim which the assessee accepted. However, the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and on appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court exonerated assessee from penalty. The relevant portion of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order is re-produced below: “5. Even though the Statement indicated that the provision towards

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

147 and during proceeding of re-assessment disallowed assessee’s claim which the assessee accepted. However, the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and on appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court exonerated assessee from penalty. The relevant portion of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order is re-produced below: “5. Even though the Statement indicated that the provision towards

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS & TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LTD., MHOW

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately on this issue. Further, the matter is being referred to Addl. Commission of Income-tax (Central), Indore for issuing notice and imposing penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the “Act”. 7. Against assessment-order, the assessee filed first-appeal to Ld. CIT(A) wherein the challenge was made to the legality

M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately on this issue. Further, the matter is being referred to Addl. Commission of Income-tax (Central), Indore for issuing notice and imposing penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the “Act”. 7. Against assessment-order, the assessee filed first-appeal to Ld. CIT(A) wherein the challenge was made to the legality

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). Admittedly, the said penalty has been imposed qua the quantum addition of Rs. 12,81,000/- made by AO in re-assessment proceeding finalized u/s 147. This addition was made by AO on the basis of section

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 2,10,000/- which is not leviable. Page 3 of 8 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Indore Assessment year 2011-12 6. In the case of the assessee, the assessment u/ 143(3) read with Section 147

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

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

section 271(1)(c) on wrong assumption of fact that the\nassessee did not file any return of relevant assessment-year. Ld. AR\nsubmitted that the penalty-order passed by AO is therefore apparently\nwrong and not sustainable.\n(iii) Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that the AO has, in the assessment-order\npassed u/s 147

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI PARESH M JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(b) upheld in the impugned order is deleted.\n\n6. Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of other one appeal i.e. ITANo.213/Ind/2025 are exactly identical to the Appeal in ITANo.212/Ind/2025 and similar contentions raised therein may be considered, therefore our findings and directions given in ITANo.212/Ind/2025 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal

OM SHANTI MOTORS,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL - (FRONT OF MAILDA MILL)

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiit(Ss)A Nos.73 To 79/Ind/2024 (Ays: 2009-10 To 2015-16) &

u/s 153A/143(3) vide two assessment-orders dated 06.12.2016 and 09.08.2017 after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried all seven matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeals vide orders dated 13.03.2018 ex-parte to assessee due to non-prosecution, while upholding the AO’s orders. The assessee thereafter carried matters before

OM SHANTI MOTORS,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL - (FRONT OF MAILDA MILL)

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiit(Ss)A Nos.73 To 79/Ind/2024 (Ays: 2009-10 To 2015-16) &

u/s 153A/143(3) vide two assessment-orders dated 06.12.2016 and 09.08.2017 after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried all seven matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeals vide orders dated 13.03.2018 ex-parte to assessee due to non-prosecution, while upholding the AO’s orders. The assessee thereafter carried matters before

OM SHANTI MOTORS,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL - (FRONT OF MAILDA MILL)

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiit(Ss)A Nos.73 To 79/Ind/2024 (Ays: 2009-10 To 2015-16) &

u/s 153A/143(3) vide two assessment-orders dated 06.12.2016 and 09.08.2017 after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried all seven matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeals vide orders dated 13.03.2018 ex-parte to assessee due to non-prosecution, while upholding the AO’s orders. The assessee thereafter carried matters before

OM SHANTI MOTORS,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL - (FRONT OF MAILDA MILL)

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiit(Ss)A Nos.73 To 79/Ind/2024 (Ays: 2009-10 To 2015-16) &

u/s 153A/143(3) vide two assessment-orders dated 06.12.2016 and 09.08.2017 after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried all seven matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) dismissed assessee’s appeals vide orders dated 13.03.2018 ex-parte to assessee due to non-prosecution, while upholding the AO’s orders. The assessee thereafter carried matters before