M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income

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

3) of that Act and failed to\nexercise the power while making the assessment. In that case, their\nLordships were dealing with the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act and it is not\nclear as to what is the scheme of assessment in that law. So far as the\nI.T. Act is concerned, the scheme of assessment as considered by their

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

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

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

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

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

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

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

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

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,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

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

SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR, INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR, INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR, INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

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

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

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

3. During the course of hearing before us, it emerged that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted penalty because the quantum-addition of Rs. 11,77,52,200/-, 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