MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. Page 19 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. Page 19 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. Page 19 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

270A or] clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. Page 19 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024

VIJAYA DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the assessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make a useful reference to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) holding thus while dealing a case of penalty imposed under Orissa

VIJAYA DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the\nassessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make\na useful reference to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nHindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) holding\nthus while dealing a case of penalty imposed under Orissa

VIJAYA DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the\nassessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make\na useful reference to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nHindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) holding\nthus while dealing a case of penalty imposed under Orissa

RAM BABU SINGH,BIHAR vs. THE ITO-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ram Babu Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Near Gayatri Mandir, 2(1), बनाम/ Saharsa, Bhopal Vs. Bihar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cufps2957D Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

1). Finally, the AO passed assessment-order after making an addition of Rs. 20,50,000/- deposited by assessee in bank accounts during demonetization period. The AO’s order is extracted below for an immediate reference: “6. Further assessee on confronting, has submitted that “I have keeping cash as I wanted to buy a property in India and most

VIJAYA DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the\nassessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make\na useful reference to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nHindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) holding\nthus while dealing a case of penalty imposed under Orissa

THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE vs. KU. NISHITA SINGHAL, MHOW DISTT. INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit-5(1) Indore : Appellant

270A or} clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 45a!or sub-section (1 A}}. (3) The provision of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in © relation to the penalty referred to in this section .. Explanation

SHARAD KUMAR DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the\nassessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make a\nuseful reference to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nHindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) holding\nthus while dealing a case of penalty imposed under Orissa

SHARAD KUMAR DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the\nassessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make a\nuseful reference to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nHindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) holding\nthus while dealing a case of penalty imposed under Orissa

SHARAD KUMAR DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the\nassessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make a\nuseful reference to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nHindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) holding\nthus while dealing a case of penalty imposed under Orissa

SHARAD KUMAR DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the\nassessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make a\nuseful reference to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nHindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) holding\nthus while dealing a case of penalty imposed under Orissa

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

270A of the Act for misreporting the\nparticulars of income and u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, are\nseparately initiated on the issue. (Addition of\nRs.7,2260,000/-)”\nThe Ld. DR has emphasized that no details, no material were\nfurnished by the assessee company that Ld. AO has correctly\npassed the “Impugned Assessment Order”.\nKriti Nutrients Ltd.\nITA No. 780/Ind/2024

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There