SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL-1, INDORE

u/s 271(1)(c) and issued show-cause notices. Subsequently, penalties were imposed for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) and then to the ITAT.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued by the AO was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment

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

u/s 148, then the amount of penalty ought to have been calculated, as per the formula provided in clause (c) of Explanation 4 to Section 271

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings\nhad been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of\nthe assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka\nHigh Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

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

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 payment of gratuity was not allowable, the assessee claimed a deduction thereon in its return of income. On the basis

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

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 payment of gratuity was not allowable, the assessee claimed a deduction thereon in its return of income. On the basis

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

SECTION 292C OF THE ACT Your Honours, first of all, the loose papers and other papers found and seized from the premises of some other persons cannot be taken as an evidence under s.292C of the Act against the appellant company. It is therefore, merely on the basis of findings given in the case of some other assessees, without conducting

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

SECTION 292C OF THE ACT Your Honours, first of all, the loose papers and other papers found and seized from the premises of some other persons cannot be taken as an evidence under s.292C of the Act against the appellant company. It is therefore, merely on the basis of findings given in the case of some other assessees, without conducting

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

Appeals are allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings\nhad been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of\nthe assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka\nHigh Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL vs. M/S BALAJI FARMS AND REALITY , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed and assessee’s cross-

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2, M/S.Balaji Farms & बनाम/ Bhopal Reality, Vs. 158,3Rd Floor, Zone-Ii, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aalfb9630L) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 50C. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in issuing penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) when the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) has merged into reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) subsequently on the same issue for which the penalty has been

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE vs. SEWA SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT TILLOR KHURAD, INDORE

271(1)(c) of the\nAct. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is\nconcerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore,\nno such penalty could be levied. These appeals are,\naccordingly, dismissed.\"\n4.6 We are also of the considered opinion basis judgment of this\nTribunal in case of RVT Technologies Ltd ITA No.275 to\n277/Ind/2023 dated 30.04.2024 (Page

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

148 despite the fact that the assessee was provided the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of the assessment. He has relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A). 4. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that in the case of assessee the scrutiny assessment was completed u/s

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

148 despite the fact that the assessee was provided the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of the assessment. He has relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A). 4. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that in the case of assessee the scrutiny assessment was completed u/s

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

148 despite the fact that the assessee was provided the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of the assessment. He has relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A). 4. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that in the case of assessee the scrutiny assessment was completed u/s

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings\nhad been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of\nthe assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka\nHigh Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

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

148 vide Para 3 of\nassessment-order dated 22.12.2019. The AO also noted, in the very same\npara, that the assessee had not filed (original) return for AY 2014-15.\nThe AO also initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of\nincome. Simultaneously, the AO also issued notice dated 22.12.2019 u/s\n274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) followed

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)

148(2) of the IT Act in which produced here below: 1. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were carried out at the premises of M/s PATH Oriental Highways Public Limited, situated at 76 Mall Road on 27.08.2014. 2. During the course of search action u/s 132 of the Income

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)

148(2) of the IT Act in which produced here below: 1. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were carried out at the premises of M/s PATH Oriental Highways Public Limited, situated at 76 Mall Road on 27.08.2014. 2. During the course of search action u/s 132 of the Income

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) of the Act, a penalty of Rs.10,000/-( Ten thousand only) was imposed on the assessee, as the assessee had committed the default within the meaning of section 271(1)(b) of the Act by not furnishing return of income as per the provision of section 148