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

40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 (i) Section 270A imposes a penalty for ‘under-reporting’ and misreporting of income . Sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) give the various instances that would constitute ‘under-reporting’ or misreporting of income and finally section 270A

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

40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 (i) Section 270A imposes a penalty for ‘under-reporting’ and misreporting of income . Sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) give the various instances that would constitute ‘under-reporting’ or misreporting of income and finally section 270A

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

40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 (i) Section 270A imposes a penalty for ‘under-reporting’ and misreporting of income . Sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) give the various instances that would constitute ‘under-reporting’ or misreporting of income and finally section 270A

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

40(a)(ia) of Rs. 14,10,480/-, (ii) disallowance of depreciation u/s 32(1) of Rs. 2,10,80,516/- and (iii) disallowance of interest u/s 37(1) of Rs. 90,33,182/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) qua these disallowances and issued show-cause notice dated 26.12.2018 u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

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

271(a)(b)(c)(d).\nUnder section 271AAC(1) an obligation is casted where\nincome determined includes any income referred to in\nsection 68,69,69A,69B, 69C, 69D to pay penalty is addition\nto tax payable u/s 115BBE. While the actual proceeding\nu/s 271AAC(1) later on may be separate & independent but\nwhile determining such income

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,ANDHERI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

40,000/- per month in the assessment year 2003-04 and Rs. 50,000/- for the assessment year 2004-05 respectively. The assisting officer is directed to recompute the addition accordingly.” 6. Referring to above Para of ITAT’s order, Ld. AR successfully demonstrated that the underlying addition of low household withdrawals made by AO was not based

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

40,000/- per month in the assessment year 2003-04 and Rs. 50,000/- for the assessment year 2004-05 respectively. The assisting officer is directed to recompute the addition accordingly.” 6. Referring to above Para of ITAT’s order, Ld. AR successfully demonstrated that the underlying addition of low household withdrawals made by AO was not based

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

40,000/- per month in the assessment year 2003-04 and Rs. 50,000/- for the assessment year 2004-05 respectively. The assisting officer is directed to recompute the addition accordingly.” 6. Referring to above Para of ITAT’s order, Ld. AR successfully demonstrated that the underlying addition of low household withdrawals made by AO was not based

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

40,000/- per month in the assessment year 2003-04 and Rs. 50,000/- for the assessment year 2004-05 respectively. The assisting officer is directed to recompute the addition accordingly.” 6. Referring to above Para of ITAT’s order, Ld. AR successfully demonstrated that the underlying addition of low household withdrawals made by AO was not based

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. DY. CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2012-13

40,10,830/-. However since the book profit was Rs.44,84,22,703/-, assessee was liable to pay tax u/s 115JB of the Act on the book profit and the same remained unchanged. Ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance/addition made in the assessment order. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were completed vide

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE,INDORE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

40,970 5,18,15,540 1,31,01,170 (iii) Against quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/ disallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT, Indore in IT(SS)A No. 175 to 177/Ind/2017

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

40,970 5,18,15,540 1,31,01,170 (iii) Against quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/ disallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT, Indore in IT(SS)A No. 175 to 177/Ind/2017

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

40,970 5,18,15,540 1,31,01,170\n(iii)\nAgainst quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters\nin first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/\ndisallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still\naggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT,\nIndore

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 providing for admissibility of electronic records as evidence have not been followed. The appellant has also placed reliance on certain decisions wherein on identical facts, similar addition made have been deleted. The appellant has also challenged the addition made on protective basis on the contention that the said amount