INDORE MANDAL DAK TAR KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MY. INDORE,INDORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , INDORE

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

282. The said decision is not applicable in the facts of the present case and the CIT(A) decided the appeal without giving an opportunity to the assessee to comments on this decision. Thus he has pleaded that the matter may be set aside to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing

INDORE MANDAL DAK TAR KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MY. INDORE,INDORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , INDORE

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

282. The said decision is not applicable in the facts of the present case and the CIT(A) decided the appeal without giving an opportunity to the assessee to comments on this decision. Thus he has pleaded that the matter may be set aside to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing

INDORE MANDAL DAK TAR KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MY. INDORE,INDORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , INDORE

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

282. The said decision is not applicable in the facts of the present case and the CIT(A) decided the appeal without giving an opportunity to the assessee to comments on this decision. Thus he has pleaded that the matter may be set aside to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing

RAMESH NANJUNDIAH DEVARYASAMUDRAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal is hereby DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2010-11 Ramesh Nanjundiah Ito 2(1) Devaryasamudram, Bhopal 101, Ground Floor, बनाम/ Plot No.7, Pooja Vihar, Vs. Sirsi Road Bishnawal, Jhotwara, S.O. Jaipur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adupd0388H Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

penalty appeal u/s 271(1)(c) to the appeal filed u/s 143(3) of the act. 2.That since the grounds of appeal have not been adjudicated by the ld. ADDL/JCIT, the order is bad in the law. 3. The assessee craves leave, to add, alter, amend, delete or modify any or all grounds of Appeals as and when deemed

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey