SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2009 whereas substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. When the quantum issue came up before the Tribunal, protective addition in the hands of the assessee was confirmed as substantive addition. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2009 whereas substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. When the quantum issue came up before the Tribunal, protective addition in the hands of the assessee was confirmed as substantive addition. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2009 whereas substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. When the quantum issue came up before the Tribunal, protective addition in the hands of the assessee was confirmed as substantive addition. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2009 whereas substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. When the quantum issue came up before the Tribunal, protective addition in the hands of the assessee was confirmed as substantive addition. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

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

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

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

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE,INDORE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

150 Assessed income 1,08,40,970 5,18,15,540 1,31,01,170 (iii) Against quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/ disallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT, Indore

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

150 Assessed income 1,08,40,970 5,18,15,540 1,31,01,170 (iii) Against quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/ disallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT, Indore

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

150 Assessed income 1,08,40,970 5,18,15,540 1,31,01,170 (iii) Against quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/ disallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT, Indore

CIT-2, BHOPAL vs. SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, RAISEN

In the result, both the appeals of revenue in case of Sewa

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Raisen Bharkacha Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aafts5908N Assessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Maryadit, Bhaisaya Badi Vs. Raisen (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaak9049E

150% of the tax payable on concealed income in the case of Sewa Sahakari Samiti & Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti respectively. 7. Aggrieved assessees filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the order of the Ld. AO and also placed reliance

CIT-2, BHOPAL vs. KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, RAISEN

In the result, both the appeals of revenue in case of Sewa

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Raisen Bharkacha Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aafts5908N Assessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Maryadit, Bhaisaya Badi Vs. Raisen (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaak9049E

150% of the tax payable on concealed income in the case of Sewa Sahakari Samiti & Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti respectively. 7. Aggrieved assessees filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and succeeded. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the order of the Ld. AO and also placed reliance

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2013-14 against the penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 22.07.2019. Also, assessee’s appeal ITA 923/ Ind/ 2019 is the penalty appeal u/s. 271AAB(1)(c) for A.Y. 2014-15 against the penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 09.08.2019. 2. Briefly stated facts

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2013-14 against the penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 22.07.2019. Also, assessee’s appeal ITA 923/ Ind/ 2019 is the penalty appeal u/s. 271AAB(1)(c) for A.Y. 2014-15 against the penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 09.08.2019. 2. Briefly stated facts

SANTOSH AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT -1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16 .08.2023

150, which is part of this order. Interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C is being charged as per law. Issue penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c).” 7. The assessment order is completely silent on the issue of claim of improvement of cost though the notice u/s 142(1) was issued by the AO wherein the assesse was asked to furnish

MUKESH SHAH ,NAGPUR vs. PCIT-2, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assesse is dismissed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimukesh Shah Pr. Cit 202, Silver Palm Apartment Indore Rpds Road, Laxmi Nagar Vs. Nagpur

section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” Accordingly, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation due to Covid-19 pandemic, the appeal filed

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 69 of the Act would apply only when the transaction is not recorded in the books. It is stated [ITA Nos.310 & 312/Ind/2015] [Shri Prabhat Sojatia & Shri Sunil Sojatia] that the assessment of assessment year 2009-10 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein the cash balance was duly accepted. It is also stated that the cash

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 69 of the Act would apply only when the transaction is not recorded in the books. It is stated [ITA Nos.310 & 312/Ind/2015] [Shri Prabhat Sojatia & Shri Sunil Sojatia] that the assessment of assessment year 2009-10 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein the cash balance was duly accepted. It is also stated that the cash