VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within one year from

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079308840(1) dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal, as & by way of a second appeal .The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079308840(1) dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

246A, and he Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 7 Vodafone Idea Ltd. ITANo.262 to 264/Ind/2018 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

246A, and he Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 7 Vodafone Idea Ltd. ITANo.262 to 264/Ind/2018 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL

In the result “Impugned Order” is set aside and penalty at

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshi

section 271(1)(b) of the Act, by not furnishing return of income on or before due date for A.Y.2016-17 & consequently imposed penalty at Rs.10,000/- for A.Y.2016-17 u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2.4 That the aforesaid order bears No.ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2020-21/1031909289(1) & that the same is dated 27.03.2021 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Penalty Order

JAYANT SECURITY AND FINANCE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

In the result “Impugned Order” is set aside and penalty at

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2016-17

section 271(1)(b) of the Act, by not furnishing return of income on or before due date for A.Y.2016-17 & consequently imposed penalty at Rs.10,000/- for A.Y.2016-17 u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2.4 That the aforesaid order bears No.ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2020-21/1031909289(1) & that the same is dated 30.03.2021 which is heareinafter referred to as the “Impugned Penalty Order

RAJEEV KAPOOR,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajeev Kapoor, Acit-2(1), बनाम/ C/O Arera Auto Centre, Bhopal Vs. E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Adupk1034D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025

271(1)(c) of the Act was issued on 26.03.2015. A show cause notice too was issued on two occasions I.e. 22.06.2015 and 24.09.2015. It is also recorded that no response has been received from the assessee. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned penalty order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshi

section 271(1)(b) of the Act, by not furnishing return of income on or before due date for A.Y.2016-17 & consequently imposed penalty at Rs.10,000/- for A.Y.2016-17 u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2.4 That the aforesaid order bears No.ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2020-21/1031909289(1) & that the same is dated 27.03.2021 which is hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Penalty Order

RAJYESHWAR RETAIL TRADE SYSTEMS PVT LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result- Impugned order is set aside and Penalty of

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

section 271(1)(b) of the Act by not furnishing its return of income on or before the due date for A.Y.2015-16. That the aforesaid order bears number:-ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2020- 21/1031913932(1) and that the same is dated 30.03.2021 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Penalty Order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned

ASHISH DAULATRAM SARIYA,UJJAIN vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way second appeal. The assessee is aggrieved by order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1069852312(1) dated 22.10.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A), passed U/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order

RAJ SOYA EXPORT & INVESTMENT LIMITED,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, INDORE

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

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiraj Soya Export & Nfac, बनाम/ Investment Limited, Delhi Vs. E-14, Saket Nagar, Indore (Pan: Aaecr8686C) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1058352847(1) dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year