RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

148\nof 1984, dated 1-9-2004] and this Court has held that non-\ninitiation of penalty proceeding by the assessing authority\nin the course of assessment proceedings, also renders the\norder erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the\nRevenue and, therefore, can be the subject-matter of\nrevision under section 263 of the Act.\n5. Respectfully following

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

2,00,00,000/- imposed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) but deleted by CIT(A) in first-appeal. Undisputed facts are such that (i) the assessee accounted for depreciation of Rs. 5,72,14,721/- in its account and claimed the same while filing return of income, (ii) the AO initially allowed assessee’s claim in scrutiny-assessment

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

2,00,00,000/- imposed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) but deleted by CIT(A) in first-appeal. Undisputed facts are such that (i) the assessee accounted for depreciation of Rs. 5,72,14,721/- in its account and claimed the same while filing return of income, (ii) the AO initially allowed assessee’s claim in scrutiny-assessment

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of the assessee, if the self-assessment tax paid prior to notice issued u/s 148 is taken into consideration then there is no amount remains as tax sought to be evaded and consequently, no penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Authorized

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANUPUR vs. JOINT COMMISIIONER OF INCOME TAX -OSD, CENTRAL-1, INDORE , INDORE

u/s 271(1)(c) and imposed penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, which were upheld by the CIT(A).", "held": "The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued by the AO for penalty proceedings was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on various

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

u/s 274 sets in motion the penalty-\nproceeding. According to Ld. AR, the aforesaid notice issued by AO is very\nmuch vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c).\nThe Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has \"concealed\nthe particulars of income\" or \"furnished inaccurate particulars of income\",\nthe AO is himself

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

148 and where ressessment is made under Section 147 in respect of income which has escaped tax, the Income Tax Officer's jurisdiction is confined to only such income which has escaped tax or has been under-assessed and does not extend to revising, reopening or reconsidering the whole assessment or permitting the assessee to reagitate questions which had been

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