ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

b) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Having regard to the above and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tune

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

2 of 9 M/s. Pumarth Infrastructure Private Limited ITA Nos. 766/Ind/2024, 757/Ind/2024, 765/Ind/2024 AYs: 2009-10 to 2011-12 Addition on account of -- 10,75,000 -- unexplained expenditure Addition on account of 96,76,800 3,09,80,760 50,96,575 suppression of sale proceeds of plots Disallowance u/s 40A

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

2 of 9 M/s. Pumarth Infrastructure Private Limited ITA Nos. 766/Ind/2024, 757/Ind/2024, 765/Ind/2024 AYs: 2009-10 to 2011-12 Addition on account of -- 10,75,000 -- unexplained expenditure Addition on account of 96,76,800 3,09,80,760 50,96,575 suppression of sale proceeds of plots Disallowance u/s 40A

M/S. SM & SM RESORTS N HOTELS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL-1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by different assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 and penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. Subsequently, the A.O. imposed a penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of appeal under consideration vide order dated 23.9.2015 thereby the assessing officer imposed

M/S. SM & SM RESORTS N HOTELS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL-1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by different assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 and penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. Subsequently, the A.O. imposed a penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of appeal under consideration vide order dated 23.9.2015 thereby the assessing officer imposed

SMT. DROPADI KALRA,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL-I), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by different assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 and penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. Subsequently, the A.O. imposed a penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of appeal under consideration vide order dated 23.9.2015 thereby the assessing officer imposed

SHRI DEEPAK KALRA,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL-I), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by different assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 and penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. Subsequently, the A.O. imposed a penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of appeal under consideration vide order dated 23.9.2015 thereby the assessing officer imposed

SHRI DEEPAK KALRA,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL-I), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by different assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 and penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. Subsequently, the A.O. imposed a penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of appeal under consideration vide order dated 23.9.2015 thereby the assessing officer imposed

SHRI DEEPAK KALRA,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL-I), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by different assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 and penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. Subsequently, the A.O. imposed a penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of appeal under consideration vide order dated 23.9.2015 thereby the assessing officer imposed

SMT. DROPADI KALRA,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL-I), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by different assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 and penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. Subsequently, the A.O. imposed a penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of appeal under consideration vide order dated 23.9.2015 thereby the assessing officer imposed

SMT. DROPADI KALRA,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL-I), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by different assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 and penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. Subsequently, the A.O. imposed a penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of appeal under consideration vide order dated 23.9.2015 thereby the assessing officer imposed

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

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

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 09.08.2019. 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate developer and builder. On 06.08.2013, a survey u/s. 133A was carried out at the premises and Buidling Projects run by the assessee-company. Subsequently

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 09.08.2019. 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate developer and builder. On 06.08.2013, a survey u/s. 133A was carried out at the premises and Buidling Projects run by the assessee-company. Subsequently

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S. IDEAL ASHIYANA PRIVATE LIMITED, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-2(1) M/S Ideal Ashiyana Indore Private Ltd., Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aadci 0029 F Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Final Hearing 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.12.2022

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© is initiated.” 14. During first-appeal, the assessee made following submission before Ld. CIT(A) which is noted on Page No. 5 of the order of Ld. CIT(A): “2] Ground No.2: (Addition of Rs. 1,39,72,500/- U/s 40A(3). 1. The assessee in the ground No.2 of the present appeal, has challenged

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

271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which