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

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

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

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

u/s 274. Therefore, the\ndecision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is not applicable.\n(ii) Veena Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 341\n(Bombay) - This case had unique facts. The assessee raised the legal\nplea of 'absence of charge' in the notice issued by AO after 30 years\nafter filing appeal before Hon'ble High Court

THE ACIT-4(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. R. K. GUPTA CONSTRACTORS & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10

260A has been admitted in the matter of addition made or deduction permissible under Section 80(1)(a)(4) and after taking note of certain judgments of the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court in the case of Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Taxing Authorities, concurrent finding s are recorded by the Commissioner (Appeal) and the Tribunal

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

u/s 40A(7) and was required to be added back. However, the same has not been added by the assessee in its computation, thereby leading to underassessment of income by Rs. 23,70,306/-." 9. Soon after the assessee was communicated the reasons for reopening the assessment, it realized that a mistake had been committed and accordingly by a letter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

u/s 40A(7) and was required to be added back. However, the same has not been added by the assessee in its computation, thereby leading to underassessment of income by Rs. 23,70,306/-." 9. Soon after the assessee was communicated the reasons for reopening the assessment, it realized that a mistake had been committed and accordingly by a letter

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

u/s 274. Therefore, the\ndecision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is not applicable.\n(ii) Veena Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 341\n(Bombay) - This case had unique facts. The assessee raised the legal\nplea of 'absence of charge' in the notice issued by AO after 30 years\nafter filing appeal before Hon'ble High Court

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

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 is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

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 is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

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

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 is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

u/s 274. Therefore, the\ndecision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is not applicable.\n(ii) Veena Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 341\n(Bombay) - This case had unique facts. The assessee raised the legal\nplea of 'absence of charge' in the notice issued by AO after 30 years\nafter filing appeal before Hon'ble High Court

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

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 is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

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 is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

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 is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act could not be levied as the admission of appeal and the substantial question of law framed credence to the bona fide of the assessee to say that there was no deliberate concealment. For ready M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 6 of 8 reference, the relevant portion

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act could not be levied as the admission of appeal and the substantial question of law framed credence to the bona fide of the assessee to say that there was no deliberate concealment. For ready M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 6 of 8 reference, the relevant portion

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act could not be levied as the admission of appeal and the substantial question of law framed credence to the bona fide of the assessee to say that there was no deliberate concealment. For ready M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 6 of 8 reference, the relevant portion

M/S. M.P. RAJYA OPEN SCHOOL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act could not be levied as the admission of appeal and the substantial question of law framed credence to the bona fide of the assessee to say that there was no deliberate concealment. For ready M.P. Rajya Open School, Bhopal (ITA Nos.376 to 382/Ind/2015) Page 6 of 8 reference, the relevant portion