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

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

R.M CHEMICALS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/AIT 4 (1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.R.M. Chemicals Acit , 4(1), Pvt.Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ 74,Jumerati, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7154D Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ca & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2023

section 271(1)(c) of the act, when the assessee clearly understood the purport and import of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c). Ld. DR submitted that the SLP filed by assessee against the said decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court has also been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. (ii) Secondly on merit, Ld. DR submitted that

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/ 1065879845(1) dated 20.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. Page 1 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/ 1065879845(1) dated 20.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. Page 1 of 13 Jaykrishnan Nair

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

171 Taxman 406 4. Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT 188 Taxman 277 5. Pr. CIT vs.M/s. Rameshwar Textile Mills Ltd. (Tax Appeal 629/2016 order dated 29.08.2016 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the assesse has not produced any evidence to show that the deposit in the bank account representing turnover of the assessee. The assesse

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO ACIT DYCIT FACELESS ASSESSMENT, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

171 Taxman 406 4. Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT 188 Taxman 277 5. Pr. CIT vs.M/s. Rameshwar Textile Mills Ltd. (Tax Appeal 629/2016 order dated 29.08.2016 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the assesse has not produced any evidence to show that the deposit in the bank account representing turnover of the assessee. The assesse

SANDEEP KUMAR YADAV,BETUL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHO

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshisandeep Kumar Yadav, Nfac, बना Palsyapalsya, Delhi म/ Palsya, Vs. The. Bhainsdehi, Betul (Pan: Afnpy3295D) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

271(1)(b) and/or exparte decision on the basis of available material only. It also brightens the chance against levy of concealment penalty. Exparte assessment order has its own limitations as to its scope and extent. Hence the assessee should not be allowed to be enriched or benefited unjustly for act of his own wrong doings, i.e. non- compliance

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito, Kalra, 1(1), बनाम/ Agar Road, Ujjain Ganesh Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

171/- is being made. Since, the assessee furnished inaccurate particular of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately.” But the assessee has filed a copy of written-submission dated 17/05/2019 filed to AO in response to the notice dated 03.05.2019 u/s 142(1) at Page No. 14 to 20 of Paper-Book under S.No

M/S M.B.INDUSTRIES P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3 (1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. M.B Industries Private Acit 3(1) Ltd. Indore Plot No.27 & 33, Sector-A, Sanwer Road, Vs. Industrial Area, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Achpp2073R Assessee By Shri A.K. Garg & Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated on this issue separately.” 5.3 As it is evident from the reply reproduced by the AO that the assessee has stated that it produced voluminous bills and vouchers in support of the capital expenditure incurred before the AO for necessary verification

DHIRENDRA INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

section 56(2)(viib) and also required the computation of fair market value of shares as per Rule 11 UA. The detailed calculation of value of shares with the Balance Sheet was filed for determining the value of shares as on 14.10.2013. The shares were valued as per Rule 11 UA as per the Balance sheet. The said valuation

SHRI GOVIND DAS MUNDRA,INDORE vs. PCIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

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

section 56(2)(viib) and also required the computation of fair market value of shares as per Rule 11 UA. The detailed calculation of value of shares with the Balance Sheet was filed for determining the value of shares as on 14.10.2013. The shares were valued as per Rule 11 UA as per the Balance sheet. The said valuation