MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section which means that before imposing the penalty under sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the levy of penalty

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section which means that before imposing the penalty under sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the levy of penalty

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

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

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

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

234A, 234B and 234C; and (iv) also recorded to initiate penalty proceeding u/s 271AAB for concealment of income of Rs.49,99,000/-. Thereafter, the AO issued show-cause notice to assessee for imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB. In response, the assessee merely submitted that he has filed an appeal against 2 Gaurav Ajmera ITA No. 808/Ind/2024

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

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

penalty imposed by AO u/s 271(1)(c). Learned Representatives agree that the underlying facts are identical in all three cases, therefore we have heard these appeals analogously and are going to dispose of by this common order for the sake of clarity, convenience and brevity. Both sides argued the facts of first appeal being ITA No. 772/Ind/2024

DCIT-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

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

penalty imposed by AO u/s 271(1)(c). Learned Representatives agree that the underlying facts are identical in all three cases, therefore we have heard these appeals analogously and are going to dispose of by this common order for the sake of clarity, convenience and brevity. Both sides argued the facts of first appeal being ITA No. 772/Ind/2024

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

234A, 234B and 234C. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming initiation of penalty u/s 271AAB. 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal as above.” 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for assessee did not press/plead Ground No. 1, 5 and 6. Therefore, those grounds are dismissed

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

271(1)(c)of the Act, 1961, Since, the penalty is separate proceeding and penalty has not been levied in the case of the appellant, the ground taken by the appellant is pre-matured at this stage, therefore, need not to be adjudicated. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8.8 Ground no. 10 pertains to levy

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

section 50C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, i.e. Valuation Rules. (4) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B which is unjustified. (5) The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The background

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

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 the information as per para 7 of the notice u/s

M/S. M. LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM vs. THE ITO-1, RATLAM

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

3-0.10.2000. The same has been processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the I.T.Act on 16.02.2001. Subsequently the appellant filed the revised return on 09.04.2001 i.e. after processing ,of original return. The appellant filed the application before -: 25 :- M.LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM. CIT,Ujjain, for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) to regularize the revised return. The revised return filed

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) as the assessment order itself is void-ab-initio (Tax Effect :20,28,200/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) as the assessment order itself is void-ab-initio (Tax Effect :20,28,200/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid

MOHAN BHAWNANI,INDORE vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) as the assessment order itself is void-ab-initio (Tax Effect :20,28,200/-) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal. Appeal No.ITA/80/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 On the facts and the circumstances of the case:- 1. That the assessment u/s 154 is invalid

M/S BAGORA DEVELOPERS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT OSD , INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bagora Developers Pvt. Acit- Ltd. Indore 34, Revenue Nagar Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaecb6424E Assessee By Shri Siddharth Mahajan & Ashok Mahajan, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2024

234A of the Act penalty disputed in appeal 4.That the Id. AO erred in charging interest of Rs. 8,62,110- u/s 234B of the Act 5 That the Id. AO erred in starting penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6.That the Id. AO erred in starting penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act." Page

SHRI PURSHOTTAM KHATRI , BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

234A of Rs.1,128/- and u/s 234B of Rs.41,064/- is not justified. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the case of the assessee was re- opened for assessment and the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s