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

Appeals are dismissed

penalty imposed by AO u/s 271(1)(c).\nLearned Representatives agree that the underlying facts are identical in all\nthree cases, therefore we have heard these appeals analogously and are\ngoing to dispose of by this common order for the sake of clarity, convenience\nand brevity. Both sides argued the facts of first appeal being ITA No.\n772/Ind/2024

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. DY. CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 115JC of the Act also. 7. Accordingly, the Board hereby directs that no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned. 8. From perusal of the above referred CBDT Circular we find

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

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

SOURABH SHARMA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, DELHI

The appeal of the assesse is allowed\nfor statistical purpose

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) of the\nIncome Tax Act is initiated separately\".\n2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid\n\"impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A\nof the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order\" has\ndismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on the grounds and\nreasons stated

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

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

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

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

234B and 234C of the Act, as applicable, without considering that interest should not be levied on account of transfer pricing adjustment made to the total income of the Appellant, which are unanticipated in nature. 10. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 10.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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 2 of 7 ITANo.73/Ind/2021 Bagora Developers P. ltd. 5. As regard Ground no. 2 the assessee has challenged the validity of assessment order passed

LILASONS BREWERIES LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

234B and u / s 234D is not justified. Page 2 of 6 ITANo.132 & 133/Ind/2023 Lilasons Breweries Ltd. 7.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 8. That the appellate craves, leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the grounds of appeal

LILASONS BREWERIES LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

234B and u / s 234D is not justified. Page 2 of 6 ITANo.132 & 133/Ind/2023 Lilasons Breweries Ltd. 7.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 8. That the appellate craves, leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the grounds of appeal

RAMESH KUMAR JAIN,ASTHA vs. THE ITO, SEHORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramesh Kumar Jain Ito, Adinath Traders, Mandi Prangan Sehore Vs. Astha (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaspj 0162 G Assessee By Shri Arpit, Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

234B is not justified. Page 1 of 4 Ramesh Kumar Jain Page 2 of 4 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified.” 2. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

MEWA LAL SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimewa Lal Singh Ito 2(5) Lig-06, A-Sector Sonagiri Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Angps 1966A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2024

234B Rs. 52,118 and 234C Rs. 2097/- that is totally unsustainable in law. 4. That the initiation of penalties under section 271(1)(b) and (c) also unsustainable in law.” 7. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the AO has made an addition of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of unexplained investment in mutual funds whereas

SANJAY KUMAR BOMB LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI AJIT KUMAR BOMB,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeal is disposed off in effective manner and not as

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisanjay Kumar Bombl/H Of Income Tax Officer, बना Late Ajit Kumar Bomb, Neemuch म/ 18, Bunglow No.41, Vs. Bhuteshwar Mandir Road, Neemuch (Pan: Aappb8200L) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

penalty notice was issued by the Department of Income Tax U/s 271(1)(c) my late father on 26.09.2024 the present legal heir came to know of about ongoing proceedings of Assessment Year 2013-14. That later on the legal heir reviewed the Income Tax portal when he learnt that an appeal was filed by his late father for Assessment

SMT SHITAL JAIN,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4 (4), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishital Jain Ito 4(4) 171, Venktesh Nagar Indore Vs. Indore

234B at Rs.1,14,18,528/-.” 2. The assesse is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 03.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,71,650/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for verification of cash withdrawals. Since the assessee did not appear in the assessment proceeding therefore, the AO passed