OM SHANTI MOTORS,BHOPAL vs. ACIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL - (FRONT OF MAILDA MILL)

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiit(Ss)A Nos.73 To 79/Ind/2024 (Ays: 2009-10 To 2015-16) &

271(1)(c) 14 614/Ind/2024 2015-16 23.07.2024 CIT(A)- 3, Bhopal Penalty- order dated 22.03.2019 JCIT(OSD)- Central-1, Bhopal Penalty u/s 271AAB 15 615/Ind/2024 to 25 625/Ind/2024 2010-11 To 2015-16 23.07.2024 CIT(A)- 3, Bhopal Penalty- order dated 28.02.2018 JCIT, Central Range, Bhopal Penalty u/s 271D & 271E 2. Since these appeals relates to same assessee

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c). Appellant also cited the following judgments in support of the above claim. i. Cement marketing Co. v/s ACST 124 15 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) ii. CIT vs Reliance petrochemicals 322 ITR 158 iii. CIT vs. SPK Steels 270 ITR 156 (MP) iv. CIT vs. Harshwardhan Chemicals

M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c). Appellant also cited the following judgments in support of the above claim. i. Cement marketing Co. v/s ACST 124 15 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) ii. CIT vs Reliance petrochemicals 322 ITR 158 iii. CIT vs. SPK Steels 270 ITR 156 (MP) iv. CIT vs. Harshwardhan Chemicals

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

penalty. 16. It was also argued that Income Tax at the rate or rates specified, as prescribed in any Central Act to be charged for any assessment year, shall be so charged in respect of the total income of the previous year as per Section 4 of the IT Act. However, there is no such provision to enable a surcharge

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

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

270/- u/s 27(1)(c) qua the addition so made. Being aggrieved by addition as well as penalty, the assessee filed separate appeals to the first appellate authority and succeeded. Now, the revenue has come in these appeals assailing the orders of first appellate authority. ITA No. 9/Ind/2020 - Quantum-appeal: 4. We first take up this appeal. The ground raised

THE ITO 2 (2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI MUNSHIRAM BALKISHAN VERMA, BHOPAL

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

270/- u/s 27(1)(c) qua the addition so made. Being aggrieved by addition as well as penalty, the assessee filed separate appeals to the first appellate authority and succeeded. Now, the revenue has come in these appeals assailing the orders of first appellate authority. ITA No. 9/Ind/2020 - Quantum-appeal: 4. We first take up this appeal. The ground raised

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. 94 ITD 91, Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. 94 ITD 91, Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. 94 ITD 91, Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

271 ITR 401 , Lucent Technologies Institute 2009-TIOL_161-ITAT-DEL, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. 94 ITD 91, Property Quip corporation Ltd. 255 ITR 354, Associated Cement Corporation (2001) 124 STC 59, Citizen Watch Company Ltd. 148 ITR 774 etc. as per submission made before the TPO in support of his contention. 6.4. The Ld. D.R. relaying on the orders

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

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)9c) are also initiated.” 3. Before the ld.CIT(A), the appellant filed following written submissions: With regard to the Income Tax Appeal in the case of our above named client company for the Assessment Year 2013-14, we have to submit as under:- Ground No. 1 1.1 This ground relate to deemed addition

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT, 1(2), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) and consulted with a different counsel for filing of appeals in penalty matters that the assessee came to know that the counsel had not filed appeals against impugned orders. Immediately thereafter, the assessee Page 6 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 arranged to file these appeals

M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) and consulted with a different counsel for filing of appeals in penalty matters that the assessee came to know that the counsel had not filed appeals against impugned orders. Immediately thereafter, the assessee Page 6 of 16 C.I. Builders Private Limited, Bhopal ITA Nos. 247 & 248/Ind/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2012-13 arranged to file these appeals

LATE MANOHARASINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI SURAJ MANDLOI,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Late Manoharasingh Income-Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir Shri 1(1), Suraj Mandloi), Indore. बनाम/ 34, Village Begam Kheri, Vs. P.O.Burana Kheri, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan : Blspm9380B Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2024

u/s 115BBE was 30%+3% Cess as on first day of the Previous-Year i.e. 01.04.2016, therefore the tax-rate of 30%+3% Cess shall apply to the present case and not the higher rate, hence the assessment-order does not cause prejudice to the interest of revenue. The reason of projecting such a claim by assessee is that