M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2007-08 -do- 3,80,020 Infrastructure Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. Name of assessee A.Y. Penalty u/s Amount Rs. 271AAA Keti-T 2011-12 -do- 43,94,610 Construction Keti Sangam 2011-12 -do- 25,14,100 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2012-13 -do- 25,07,250 Infrastcucture 4. We would

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) It was held that where two interpretations were possible and the AO has taken a view different from that of the assessee, the assessee could not be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and consequently penalty u/s. 271

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) It was held that where two interpretations were possible and the AO has taken a view different from that of the assessee, the assessee could not be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and consequently penalty u/s. 271

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) It was held that where two interpretations were possible and the AO has taken a view different from that of the assessee, the assessee could not be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and consequently penalty u/s. 271

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) It was held that where two interpretations were possible and the AO has taken a view different from that of the assessee, the assessee could not be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and consequently penalty u/s. 271

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) It was held that where two interpretations were possible and the AO has taken a view different from that of the assessee, the assessee could not be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and consequently penalty u/s. 271

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) It was held that where two interpretations were possible and the AO has taken a view different from that of the assessee, the assessee could not be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and consequently penalty u/s. 271

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

6. Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) Alpha Associates Vs. DCIT (66 TTJ 758) (Bom.) It was held that where two interpretations were possible and the AO has taken a view different from that of the assessee, the assessee could not be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and consequently penalty u/s. 271

PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,MHOW vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

43 ITJ 524 (ITAT, Indore Bench) – in the matter of section 271AAB (iv) Mukesh Kumar Ranka Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 97 & 98/Ind/2024 order dated 21.03.2024 (ITAT, Indore Bench) – in the matter of section 271AAB 9. Ld. AR submitted that the present case of assessee stands fully covered by above decisions, hence the penalty notice issued and consequently the penalty order

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

M/S KEVAL (INDIA) LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT-R 1(1) , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

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

Section 43(5) of the Act and can be set off only against as speculative profit. Subsequently Ld. A.O initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act on the disallowance of loss. 5. In the instant two appeals the common issues raised relates to levy of penalty u/s 271

M/S KEVAL ( INDIA ) LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT-R-1 (1) , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

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

Section 43(5) of the Act and can be set off only against as speculative profit. Subsequently Ld. A.O initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act on the disallowance of loss. 5. In the instant two appeals the common issues raised relates to levy of penalty u/s 271

THE D C I T -3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI DEEPAK KALRA , INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10

43,45,000/- -in AY 2009-10 u/s 271(1)(c) is Deleted. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is Allowed. 6. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the finding of Ld. CIT(A). 7. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. A.O and also submitted that if the search u/s

ASHRAF KHAN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

6. Per contra Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of lower authorities. 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The issues raised by the assessee revolves around the legality and quantum of levy of penalty at Rs.1,66,500/- levied by the Ld. A.O u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) for the impugned disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 5,72,14,721/-. Page 4 of 17 M/s. Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan ITA No. 509/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 (iv) Aggrieved by penalty-order, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the CIT(A) reversed AO’s action and deleted penalty. Now, the revenue