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

2) No penalty under the provisions of 53[section 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

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of 53[section 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

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of 53[section 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

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

270A(1) there is a\nprovision that Ld. AO during the course of any proceedings\nunder the act direct that any person who has under reported\nhis Income shall be liable to pay a penalty in addition to tax\nif any, on under reported Income. Similar provision is under\nsection 271 AAD. Section 271(1) contemplates satisfaction in\ncourse

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

2 of 13 Shri Ram Babu Singh, Bihar ITA No. 17/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 withdrawals from bank immediately preceding the cash deposits. Alongwith that the assessee has throughout his statement never explained the actual source of the deposits. 7. The reason stated by the assessee for cash deposit of Rs. 20,50,000/- during demonetization period is neither acceptable

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

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

2) No penalty under the provisions of 45[section 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

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

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

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

B-51 were made to hammals on daily/ fortnightly basis in cash, however due to format as suggested by FCI the seized registers were maintained on monthly basis. Further, the appellant for execution of work of FCI and other concerns would not hire 211 permanent employee during the year 2014-15 and 189 during the year 2015-16. Rather

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

B-51 were made to hammals on daily/ fortnightly basis in cash, however due to format as suggested by FCI the seized registers were maintained on monthly basis. Further, the appellant for execution of work of FCI and other concerns would not hire 211 permanent employee during the year 2014-15 and 189 during the year 2015-16. Rather

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

B-51 were made to hammals on daily/ fortnightly basis in cash, however due to format as suggested by FCI the seized registers were maintained on monthly basis. Further, the appellant for execution of work of FCI and other concerns would not hire 211 permanent employee during the year 2014-15 and 189 during the year 2015-16. Rather

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