THE ACIT -4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI MUKESH SANGLA, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2010-11 Acit-4(1), Shri Mukesh Sangla, Indore बनाम/ Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Anaps5579F

2:- Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the initiation of the penalty proceedings and also the levy of penalty of Rs. 3,77,60,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is stated in the penalty order that during the assessment proceedings in response to notice u/s 153A the assessee voluntarily disclosed

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

2 Fortune Builders ITA No.82 to 84/Ind/2017 4. At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Act by the assessee at Rs.11,00,000/-, Rs.28,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,000/- respectively for Assessment

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

2 Fortune Builders ITA No.82 to 84/Ind/2017 4. At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Act by the assessee at Rs.11,00,000/-, Rs.28,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,000/- respectively for Assessment

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

2 Fortune Builders ITA No.82 to 84/Ind/2017 4. At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) of the Act by the assessee at Rs.11,00,000/-, Rs.28,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,000/- respectively for Assessment

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

2 Smt. Rama Garg charges has been confirmed by this Tribunal and consequently the CIT(A) has restricted the penalty to the extent of disallowance of electricity expenses. 5. Before the Tribunal Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the electricity expenses claimed by the assessee are in respect of godown of husband of the assessee which is used

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 SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

SECTION 292C OF THE ACT Your Honours, first of all, the loose papers and other papers found and seized from the premises of some other persons cannot be taken as an evidence under s.292C of the Act against the appellant company. It is therefore, merely on the basis of findings given in the case of some other assessees, without conducting

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

SECTION 292C OF THE ACT Your Honours, first of all, the loose papers and other papers found and seized from the premises of some other persons cannot be taken as an evidence under s.292C of the Act against the appellant company. It is therefore, merely on the basis of findings given in the case of some other assessees, without conducting

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

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

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

ACIT CENTRAL -2 BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RISHI CONSTRUCTION , BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit (Central)-2, Rishi Construction, Bhopal F-11, Mansarovar Complex, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Bhopal Vs.

254(2) is not limited to a mistake committed by the Tribunal, the amendment to the order of Tribunal can also be made if it is triggered on account of a mistake of counsel. In our view, the principle accepted by Hon’ble Court can be perfectly applied in present case of assessee because the claim (B) could not presented

M/S RISHI CONSTRUCTION ,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit (Central)-2, Rishi Construction, Bhopal F-11, Mansarovar Complex, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Bhopal Vs.

254(2) is not limited to a mistake committed by the Tribunal, the amendment to the order of Tribunal can also be made if it is triggered on account of a mistake of counsel. In our view, the principle accepted by Hon’ble Court can be perfectly applied in present case of assessee because the claim (B) could not presented

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. DR. SHRI RAJEEV CHAUDHARY, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Pan : Abkpc5729K Assistant Commissioner Of V/S Dr.Rajeev Choudhary Income Tax, 1, Shiv Vilas Palace Circle-2(1), Indore Indore

penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c ) is initiated. The above issue is also dealt by the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in two recent cases and held as under :- (A) Sadhana Nabera vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) dated 2510512010 Rajeev Choudhary ITA Nos.293/Ind/2012& C.O.No.65/Ind/2012 Tests laid down to determine whether income from shares is "business" income or "capital gains" The assessee

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. Addition : Rs. 2,96,44,454/-.” Thus, for the AY 2012-13, the AO made addition of Rs. 51,20,79,310/- in gold business and Rs. 2,96,44,454/- in silver business. With identical observations, the AO also made additions of varying amounts

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. Addition : Rs. 2,96,44,454/-.” Thus, for the AY 2012-13, the AO made addition of Rs. 51,20,79,310/- in gold business and Rs. 2,96,44,454/- in silver business. With identical observations, the AO also made additions of varying amounts

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI OMPRAKASH DHANWANI, INDORE

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately. Addition : Rs. 2,96,44,454/-.” Thus, for the AY 2012-13, the AO made addition of Rs. 51,20,79,310/- in gold business and Rs. 2,96,44,454/- in silver business. With identical observations, the AO also made additions of varying amounts