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(6) states that underreported income would not include the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (ii) Section 271(1)(c) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means

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(6) states that underreported income would not include the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (ii) Section 271(1)(c) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means

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(6) states that underreported income would not include the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (ii) Section 271(1)(c) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means

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

6. On the basis of such information, a show cause notice u/s\n148A (b) dt. 31.03.2022 was issued to the assessee. In response\nto this notice, assessee submitted reply on 02.04.2022.\nConsidering the reply of assessee, order u/s 148A(d) was passed\non 13.04.2022. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax\nAct, dt. 13.04.2022 along with order u/s 148A

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

6. Ld. AR for assessee has filed a detailed written-submission and also made oral arguments during hearing. The contemporary point raised by Ld. AR is such that the higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE is applicable only to the income u/s 68 to 69D. However, the AO’s noting in assessment-order is “the assessee’s income

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

6. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee supported the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and also submitted that the notice of search was not issued in the name of assessee. Notice u/s 274 of the Act issued to assessee is defective as it does not specify specific charge against the assessee. He also referred to the written submissions running

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

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

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 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

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 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

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 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

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 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

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 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

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 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

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