AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of IT Act which operates in a different realm and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., does not rescue the Revenue as impugned notice is hit by the vice of lack of jurisdiction on account of being time barred. 3(xxii) One other reason given by the learned single Judge for dismissing the Assessee's writ

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

Appeals are allowed

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

263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from

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

Appeals are allowed

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

263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.” 9.4 Further this tribunal in case of Shri Umakant Sharma vs. JCIT(supra) has considered an identical issue in para 8 to 11 as under

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.” 9.4 Further this tribunal in case of Shri Umakant Sharma vs. JCIT(supra) has considered an identical issue in para 8 to 11 as under

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.” 9.4 Further this tribunal in case of Shri Umakant Sharma vs. JCIT(supra) has considered an identical issue in para 8 to 11 as under

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

263, the AO re-framed assessment wherein he disallowed assessee’s claim, (iii) the AO thereafter imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) treating it as a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars by assessee. Thus, the penalty imposed by AO hinges on the point that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by making wrong claim of depreciation. However

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

263, the AO re-framed assessment wherein he disallowed assessee’s claim, (iii) the AO thereafter imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) treating it as a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars by assessee. Thus, the penalty imposed by AO hinges on the point that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by making wrong claim of depreciation. However

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is clear that section 275, pre supposes the existence of assessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising from the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided as per outcome of these proceedings

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is clear that section 275, pre supposes the existence of assessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising from the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided as per outcome of these proceedings

SHRI UMAKANT SHARMA,JHABUA vs. THE JCIT , RATLAM

In the result, appeal for A

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

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is clear that section 275, pre supposes the existence of assessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising from the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided as per outcome of these proceedings

M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately on this issue. Further, the matter is being referred to Addl. Commission of Income-tax (Central), Indore for issuing notice and imposing penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the “Act”. 7. Against assessment-order, the assessee filed first-appeal to Ld. CIT(A) wherein the challenge was made to the legality

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS & TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LTD., MHOW

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately on this issue. Further, the matter is being referred to Addl. Commission of Income-tax (Central), Indore for issuing notice and imposing penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the “Act”. 7. Against assessment-order, the assessee filed first-appeal to Ld. CIT(A) wherein the challenge was made to the legality

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito-1(1) बनाम/ Kalra, Ujjain Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

section 263 through order dated 27.08.2019. He submits that the impugned penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) had been

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito, Kalra, 1(1), बनाम/ Agar Road, Ujjain Ganesh Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

section 54F prohibits purchase of second residential house as being claimed by revenue. But he submits that the assessee’s case fits in that legal provision Page 2 of 7 Shri Harvinder Singh Kalra, Ujjain vs. ITO 1(1), Ujjain ITA No.128/Ind/2023 – AY 2014-15 and in fact does not violate the same. He submitted that both of the residential

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL vs. MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI ANUSUCHIT JATI VITT EVAM VIKAS NIGAM, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 80P of the IT Act, 1961 and\nallowing the appeal of the assessee, thereby deleting the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Rs.1,75,00,000/-, when inaccurate particulars of income are\nclearly apparent from the return of income filed and the submissions of the\nassessee during the penalty proceedings?\"\n2. The background facts leading to present appeal

SARSWATI VIDHYA PRATISHTHAN M.P ,BHUPAL vs. THE ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately.” 5.1 Thus, it is clear that the AO has disallowed the claim primarily on two grounds, that this expenditure is incurred for organizing the Shivir/celebration and not proportionate to the normal expenditure incurred by the assessee on providing education to the students. The second objection

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

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 142(1) as under: Page 4 of 7 Santosh Agrawal