M/S. FORTUNE BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL -II, BHOPAL

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

302/- respectively. 9. Though the assessee has taken the additional ground challenging the legality of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act but we would like to first deal with the merits of the case Fortune Builders ITA No.82 to 84/Ind/2017 about the justification of levying the penalty u/s 271

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

302 ITR 63 has held that in absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment made by the assessee which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales, the finding of the Tribunal that only the GP on the said amount can be brought to tax does not call for any interference. (Tax Effect

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO ACIT DYCIT FACELESS ASSESSMENT, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

302 ITR 63 has held that in absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment made by the assessee which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales, the finding of the Tribunal that only the GP on the said amount can be brought to tax does not call for any interference. (Tax Effect

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

penalty\nunder section 271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule

ANKUR AGRAWAL,BARKHEDA BHOPAL vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

penalty order u/s 271(1(c ) of Income Tax Act respective for the Assessment Year ITANo.18/Ind/2024 & .21/Ind/2014 Ankur Agrawal 2013-14. In the quantum appeal the assessee has raised following grounds of appeals. 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the learned lower authorities are vitiated on several grounds hence the same

ANKUR AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

penalty order u/s 271(1(c ) of Income Tax Act respective for the Assessment Year ITANo.18/Ind/2024 & .21/Ind/2014 Ankur Agrawal 2013-14. In the quantum appeal the assessee has raised following grounds of appeals. 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the learned lower authorities are vitiated on several grounds hence the same

BHAGWAT PRASAD MALVIYA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

u/s 54B and 54F without proper justification. 9.11 This ground lacks merit in view of the factual analysis done by the AO. The breakup of disallowance is clearly justified as follows: Section 54B: 9.12 The exemption was claimed on multiple purchases, but only the land purchased on 21.12.2013 for Rs. 35,49,845 was within the permitted time window post

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

SMT SHITAL JAIN,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4 (4), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishital Jain Ito 4(4) 171, Venktesh Nagar Indore Vs. Indore

302 ITR 173. Therefore, It is not required to give further opportunity to such recalcitrant assessee. 5.2 The section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays a presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the Assessee