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

In the result, appeal for A

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) JCIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [2013] 352 ITR 327(Raj) Page 11 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. (iv) CIT v. Hissaria Brothers [2016] 386 ITR 719 (SC) (v) Omec Engineers vs CIT [2008] 294 Taxman 599 (Jharkhand) (vi) CIT v. Ratna Agencies [2006] 284 ITR 609 (vii) CIT vs Lakshmi Trust

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) JCIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [2013] 352 ITR 327(Raj) Page 11 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. (iv) CIT v. Hissaria Brothers [2016] 386 ITR 719 (SC) (v) Omec Engineers vs CIT [2008] 294 Taxman 599 (Jharkhand) (vi) CIT v. Ratna Agencies [2006] 284 ITR 609 (vii) CIT vs Lakshmi Trust

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

154 taxmann.com 504 (Jaipur - Trib.) (iii) JCIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore [2013] 352 ITR 327(Raj) Page 11 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. (iv) CIT v. Hissaria Brothers [2016] 386 ITR 719 (SC) (v) Omec Engineers vs CIT [2008] 294 Taxman 599 (Jharkhand) (vi) CIT v. Ratna Agencies [2006] 284 ITR 609 (vii) CIT vs Lakshmi Trust

AATMARAM BARASKAR,BHOPAL vs. AO WARD 5(3), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradaatmaram Baraskar Ito- Ward 5(3) 15, Vrandavan Nagar, Bhopal Ayodhya Bypass, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agnpb 7088C Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y.2010-11. 2. There is a delay of four days in filing the present appeal. The assesse has filed an affidavit to explain cause of delay. Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that after receiving the impugned order on ITANo.313/Ind/2023 Aatmaram Baraskar 15th June 2023 the assesse filed

BHAGWAT PRASAD MALVIYA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

154 is found to be justified. This ground is dismissed. 9.10 Ground 3 relates to that the AO erred in disallowing exemption of Rs. 1,12,73,663 u/s 54B and 54F without proper justification. 9.11 This ground lacks merit in view of the factual analysis done by the AO. The breakup of disallowance is clearly justified as follows: Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL vs. MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI ANUSUCHIT JATI VITT EVAM VIKAS NIGAM, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 80P of the IT Act, 1961 and\nallowing the appeal of the assessee, thereby deleting the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Rs.1,75,00,000/-, when inaccurate particulars of income are\nclearly apparent from the return of income filed and the submissions of the\nassessee during the penalty proceedings?\"\n2. The background facts leading to present appeal

BALKISHAN KOUSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

271(1)(c) and ultimately passed penalty-order dated 03.02.2022 imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,20,000/- qua the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/-. Aggrieved by both orders, namely assessment-order and penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals to CIT(A) but the CIT(A) noted that the appeals filed by assessee were belated

BALKISHAN KOSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

271(1)(c) and ultimately passed penalty-order dated 03.02.2022 imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,20,000/- qua the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/-. Aggrieved by both orders, namely assessment-order and penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals to CIT(A) but the CIT(A) noted that the appeals filed by assessee were belated

M/S SIDDHULA;L,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that in the case of assessee-individual, the AO received an information that the assessee sold a land on 06.09.2010 for Rs. 35,00,000/-, having stamps valuation of Rs. 48,05,000/- and earned capital gain. Accordingly, to assess the same, the AO issued

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) without considering the fact that transfer pricing adjustment has been made on account of difference of opinion, interpretation of provisions of law, etc. and not due to any concealment of or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Appellant.” 2. The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal vide application dated

BABITA CHELAWAT,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed & the impugned order is set aside

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

u/s 143(3) rws 147. The order was uploaded on the new income tax portal and no communication was made to the assessee about the same. I have gone through the ground and submission made by the appellant on this issue. The appellant claims that the AO failed to serve the rectification order under Section 154. However, the rectification request

RAMESH NANJUNDIAH DEVARYASAMUDRAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal is hereby DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2010-11 Ramesh Nanjundiah Ito 2(1) Devaryasamudram, Bhopal 101, Ground Floor, बनाम/ Plot No.7, Pooja Vihar, Vs. Sirsi Road Bishnawal, Jhotwara, S.O. Jaipur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adupd0388H Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Nagpur, had mistakenly considered the application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 in respect of the penalty-order while disposing off the appeal in respect of the assessment-order. Aggrieved by the order dated 18-03-2024, a rectification request was filed

KALPANA NARWARE,BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

u/s 69A of the Act and entire turnover was taxed @3%,\nthereby making addition of Rs 1,02,14,380/-.\n9. It is submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the Appellant had\nprovided all relevant documents to its Chartered Accountant, Shri Anil\nBangad, for ensuring proper compliance in response to the notice. However,\ndespite repeated follow-ups, the Counsel failed

SURESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL,LA GARDINA APP. SHREE NAGAR, INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN, WHITE CHURCH ROAD, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]\nfor Assessment-Years [“AY\"] 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively, the assessee\nSuresh Kumar Kejriwal\nITA No. 266 & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14\nhas filed the captioned twin appeals on the grounds mentioned in respective\nAppeal Memos (Form No. 36).\n2.\nLd. AR for assessee drew