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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction and bad in law, as the Assessing Officer failed to record any prima facie satisfaction or reasons in the assessment order justifying the initiation of penalty proceedings. The mere mention of Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated' in the assessment order is insufficient and does

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction and bad in law, as the\nAssessing Officer failed to record any prima facie satisfaction or reasons in\nthe assessment order justifying the initiation of penalty proceedings. The\nmere mention of Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated' in the\nassessment order is insufficient and does

RAM BABU SINGH,BIHAR vs. THE ITO-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ram Babu Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Near Gayatri Mandir, 2(1), बनाम/ Saharsa, Bhopal Vs. Bihar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cufps2957D Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

200% of tax sought to be evaded. Subsequently, the AO passed rectification-order charging tax at a higher rate of 60% u/s 115BBE. On a careful consideration of the scheme of Income-tax Act, 1961, we find that if an income is taxable u/s 68 to 69D, then the section 115BBE prescribes higher rate of tax @ 60% but a lower

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR vs. OREF SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MANDSAUR

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Oref Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mandsaur 69, Agrasen Nagar, बनाम/ Mandsaur Vs. (Revenue/Appellant ) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aabco 0111 G Assessee By Shri Subhash Chand Jain, Ca & Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.02.2024

200/-, for which the impugned penalty was imposed by AO, had itself been deleted by ITAT, Indore Bench in ITA No. 70/Ind/2018 order dated 17.11.2021. The order passed by the CIT(A) is reproduced below for an immediate reference: Page 2 of 4 ITO, Mandsaur vs. OREF Securities P. Ltd., Mandsaur. ITA No. 254/Ind/2023

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

section 154 of the Income Tax Act. In the first week of August 2023, I realised that my application for rectification of mistake was not being disposed off and therefore, to safeguard my legal rights I rushed to file the present appeal before Page 2 of 9 ITANo.313/Ind/2023 Aatmaram Baraskar the Hon'ble Tribunal. Due to holidays on 12th, 13th

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

200/- to Rs. 2,500/- per kg. Accordingly, the AO made additions on account of estimated gross-profit in AY 2009-10 to 2011-12. 3. Against order of AO, the assessee went in first-appeal. The CIT(A), though upheld the rejection of books, but found the AO’s method of estimation of gross-profit as faulty. He made

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

200/- to Rs. 2,500/- per kg. Accordingly, the AO made additions on account of estimated gross-profit in AY 2009-10 to 2011-12. 3. Against order of AO, the assessee went in first-appeal. The CIT(A), though upheld the rejection of books, but found the AO’s method of estimation of gross-profit as faulty. He made

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

200/- to Rs. 2,500/- per kg. Accordingly, the AO made additions on account of estimated gross-profit in AY 2009-10 to 2011-12. 3. Against order of AO, the assessee went in first-appeal. The CIT(A), though upheld the rejection of books, but found the AO’s method of estimation of gross-profit as faulty. He made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the I..T. Act are initiated separately. 11. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions:- Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 The facts of the case are that the appellant is a society which was established on 04.12.1996 basically for development of downtrodden/poor people of society

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the I..T. Act are initiated separately. 11. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions:- Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 The facts of the case are that the appellant is a society which was established on 04.12.1996 basically for development of downtrodden/poor people of society

SURESHCHAND LAKHMICHAND JAIN,BASODA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sureshchand Lakhmichand Ito, Vidisha Jain, 19, M/S. Suresh Chand Adesh बनाम Kumar, / Sironj Road, Gandhi Chowk Vs. Ganj Basoda (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Admpj6555G Assessee By Shri Manish Dafaria, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2025

200 10 X 100 Page 2 of 7 Sureshchand Lakhmichand Jain ITA No. 545/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 3. When the AO asked assessee to explain source of impugned deposits in SBNs, the assessee submitted cash-book showing opening balance of Rs. 19,51,281.08 as on 09.11.2016. On consideration of assessee’s submission, the AO accepted only first deposit

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

200 ml, 500 ml, 1 kg, 5 kg and 15\nkg without its conversion into MT before\nAO. (Page No. 40 & 41 of PB)\nKriti Nutrients Ltd.\nITA No. 780/Ind/2024\nA.Y. 2021-22\nPage 59 of 107\nPara 7.5 of the assessment\norder : The AO considered CASS\nParameters which suggest the\nrational and line of Investigation\ni.e. possibility of booking

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

200/-. It has been claimed in the said sale deed\nthat entire sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/- has been paid in cash in past\nand nothing has to be given henceforth. The facts inured from the sale deed\nwas quite contrary to the claim of the assessee that sale consideration\namounting to Rs.13,21,000/- has been received

LATE MANOHARASINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI SURAJ MANDLOI,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Late Manoharasingh Income-Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir Shri 1(1), Suraj Mandloi), Indore. बनाम/ 34, Village Begam Kheri, Vs. P.O.Burana Kheri, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Blspm9380B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2024

penalty u/s 271AAC are being initiated separately in view of the additions being made u/s 69A read with 15BBE.” 8. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) upheld AO’s action by passing following order: “6. DECISION: 6.1 During the appeal proceedings the appellant was given enough opportunity to explain the source of cash credited in bank account