SHRI KULWANT SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, INDORE

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Shri Kulwant Singh Bhatia v. Addl. CIT-Range 3(1) Indore/I.T.A. No. 414 to 419/Ind/2012/A.Y.: 02-03 to 07-08 Page 3 of 23 3a) That, the learned CIT (A) grossly erred in confirming the imposition of penalty, which is solely based on the additional income declared by the appellant in his return

M/S. FORTUNE BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL -II, BHOPAL

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the alleged disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 10. We find that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of housing project. The map was approved. Audited Report in Form 10CCB of the IT rules were issued by the Chartered Accountant. Project

M/S. FORTUNE BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL -II, BHOPAL

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the alleged disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 10. We find that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of housing project. The map was approved. Audited Report in Form 10CCB of the IT rules were issued by the Chartered Accountant. Project

M/S. FORTUNE BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL -II, BHOPAL

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the alleged disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 10. We find that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of housing project. The map was approved. Audited Report in Form 10CCB of the IT rules were issued by the Chartered Accountant. Project

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

AATMARAM BARASKAR,BHOPAL vs. AO WARD 5(3), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradaatmaram Baraskar Ito- Ward 5(3) 15, Vrandavan Nagar, Bhopal Ayodhya Bypass, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agnpb 7088C Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

section 154 of the Income Tax Act. In the first week of August 2023, I realised that my application for rectification of mistake was not being disposed off and therefore, to safeguard my legal rights I rushed to file the present appeal before Page 2 of 9 ITANo.313/Ind/2023 Aatmaram Baraskar the Hon'ble Tribunal. Due to holidays on 12th, 13th

RAMA GARG,SEHORE vs. DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rama Garg, Dcit-3(1), Gadhi Chok, Bhopal Chota Bazar, Vs. Nasrullaganj, Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abcpg1140J Assessee By Shri R.K. Mangal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024

254/- however, during the assessment proceedings the assessee failed to produce any bill of electricity despite various opportunities provided by the Assessing Officer to substantiate of her claim of electricity expenses. Therefore, the claim of the assessee was absolutely not tenable. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case

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

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

254 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the act”] for assessment-year [“AY”] 2008-09 and 2009-10; and (ii) Penalty-Appeal i.e. ITA No. 279/Ind/2021 is against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore [“Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 22.06.2017, arising out of penalty-order dated 27.03.2015 passed by Ld. ACIT-4(1

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

254 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the act”] for assessment-year [“AY”] 2008-09 and 2009-10; and (ii) Penalty-Appeal i.e. ITA No. 279/Ind/2021 is against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore [“Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 22.06.2017, arising out of penalty-order dated 27.03.2015 passed by Ld. ACIT-4(1

M/S PHOENIX DEVCONS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT4 (1), INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

254 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the act”] for assessment-year [“AY”] 2008-09 and 2009-10; and (ii) Penalty-Appeal i.e. ITA No. 279/Ind/2021 is against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore [“Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 22.06.2017, arising out of penalty-order dated 27.03.2015 passed by Ld. ACIT-4(1