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

40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023

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

40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023

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

40A(3). Thus, considering entire conspectus of case, we do not find any valid reason to make interference with the deletion of disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, we uphold order of CIT(A) and the grounds raised by revenue are dismissed. Page 14 of 46 Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia ITA Nos. 206 & 207/Ind/2023 & ITANo.227/Ind/2023

ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S RUCHI J OIL PVT. LTD,, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15

271(1)(c), it has been consistently held by this Hon’ble Bench that where notice proposing to levy penalty does not indicate the specific default or where penalty proceedings were initiated for one default while penalty was levied for another default, the penalty levied cannot be sustained. The ratio of the above decisions squarely applies in the case

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , 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

40A(7). The AO finalized assessment of assessee by way of scrutiny u/s 143(3) and in the assessment so finalized, the assessee’s claim remained allowed. Subsequently, the AO re-opened assessee’s case u/s 147 and during proceeding of re-assessment disallowed assessee’s claim which the assessee accepted. However, the AO imposed penalty u/s 271

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

40A(7). The AO finalized assessment of assessee by way of scrutiny u/s 143(3) and in the assessment so finalized, the assessee’s claim remained allowed. Subsequently, the AO re-opened assessee’s case u/s 147 and during proceeding of re-assessment disallowed assessee’s claim which the assessee accepted. However, the AO imposed penalty u/s 271

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nconsidering the concealment of income of Rs. 24,19,200/- and levied penalty\nof Rs. 8,00,000/-. The penalty so levied by the Ld. AO is in accordance with\nthe provision made under Income Tax Act, 1961 and is found to be in order.\nFurther, the contention

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

40A(3) 4,94,220 75,340 14,90,150 Assessed income 1,08,40,970 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

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

40A(3) 4,94,220 75,340 14,90,150 Assessed income 1,08,40,970 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

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

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

3) of the Act vide order dated 24.3.2015. While M/s. SM & SM Resorts N Hotels International Ltd., Indore and Shri Deepak Kalra, Indore & others framing the assessment, the A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

3) of the Act vide order dated 24.3.2015. While M/s. SM & SM Resorts N Hotels International Ltd., Indore and Shri Deepak Kalra, Indore & others framing the assessment, the A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

3) of the Act vide order dated 24.3.2015. While M/s. SM & SM Resorts N Hotels International Ltd., Indore and Shri Deepak Kalra, Indore & others framing the assessment, the A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

3) of the Act vide order dated 24.3.2015. While M/s. SM & SM Resorts N Hotels International Ltd., Indore and Shri Deepak Kalra, Indore & others framing the assessment, the A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

3) of the Act vide order dated 24.3.2015. While M/s. SM & SM Resorts N Hotels International Ltd., Indore and Shri Deepak Kalra, Indore & others framing the assessment, the A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

3) of the Act vide order dated 24.3.2015. While M/s. SM & SM Resorts N Hotels International Ltd., Indore and Shri Deepak Kalra, Indore & others framing the assessment, the A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

3) of the Act vide order dated 24.3.2015. While M/s. SM & SM Resorts N Hotels International Ltd., Indore and Shri Deepak Kalra, Indore & others framing the assessment, the A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

3) of the Act vide order dated 24.3.2015. While M/s. SM & SM Resorts N Hotels International Ltd., Indore and Shri Deepak Kalra, Indore & others framing the assessment, the A.O. also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 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