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

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

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 – AY 2017-18 the assessment

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

3. In this context, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 26.8.2010 in ITA No.1420 of 2009 in the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (available in NJRS as 2010- LL-0826-2), held that when the tax payable on income computed under normal procedure is less than the tax payable under the deeming provisions of Section 115JB

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

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

234B, 234C & 234D as per rules if any. Give credit to prepaid taxes, if any, after necessary verification. (KN. SONKAR) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 2(1), Bhopal Copy to the Assessee (KIM SONKAR) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 2(1), Bhopal CERTIFIED Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1) Bhopal 4. Thereafter, the AO passed penalty order u/s 271

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

3) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 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

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

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

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 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

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

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

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

M/S. GANPAT PANNALAL,HARDA vs. ITO-1 HARDA, HARDA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2007-08

234B and 234C is not justified. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. 5.That the appellate craves, leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 3. Briefly stated facts

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

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