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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

section 271(1)(c). (Vinita Dubey) M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -2, Indore 9. From perusal of the above show cause notice we observe that both the charges i.e. considering the particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particular of income have been leveled against the assessee. It is not clear

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

SEEMA JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

271(1)(C). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellant voluntarily in compliance of section 50 C paid additional tax which did not automatically attract the penalty.” 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed her return of income of relevant AY 2012-13 u/s

SWAN PETRCHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 271(1)(c) whereas at the most it is a case of furnishing incorrect particulars of income and not concealment of particulars of income. Therefore the Explanation-1 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions: 4 M/s. Swan Petrochemicals Pvt.Ltd (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court

THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE vs. KU. NISHITA SINGHAL, MHOW DISTT. INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit-5(1) Indore : Appellant

u/s 153A not on cases assessed ujs153C. 4.3 It would be pertinent to reproduce the language of section 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961:- "271AAB. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a' case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after

ASHISH DAULATRAM SARIYA,UJJAIN vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2012-13

section 271(1)(b) which is erroneous, bad in law, unjustified, illegal and void ab initio. 4. That penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(b) is arbitrary. 4 unwarranted and not backed by facts on records and contrary to the principles of justice. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, vary or delete

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

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

section 68 of the income tax act. 6.4. The appellant has now submitted that it has received business income and transfers from other banks of self. However, the appellant was not able to prove the same on the basis of cashbook and details of cash sales, etc. The remand report also states that the claim made by the appellant cannot

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

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

section 68 of the income tax act. 6.4. The appellant has now submitted that it has received business income and transfers from other banks of self. However, the appellant was not able to prove the same on the basis of cashbook and details of cash sales, etc. The remand report also states that the claim made by the appellant cannot

ILIYAS,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiiliyas, Nfac, बनाम/ 56, Khargone Road Bedia, Delhi Vs. Khargone

271(1)(b) of the IT Act is initiated separately for non compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act is initiated separately. Penalty proceeding u/s 271B of the Act is initiated separately. 5. Final computation of taxable income: Page 7 of 12 Iliyas ITA No. 445/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 Sl.No. Description Amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL vs. MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI ANUSUCHIT JATI VITT EVAM VIKAS NIGAM, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

section 80P of the IT Act, 1961 and\nallowing the appeal of the assessee, thereby deleting the penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Rs.1,75,00,000/-, when inaccurate particulars of income are\nclearly apparent from the return of income filed and the submissions of the\nassessee during the penalty proceedings?\"\n2. The background facts leading to present appeal

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 has assessed the total income of the assessee as presumptive business income u/s 44AD @8% of the total deposit in the current account of the assessee and also made addition u/s 68 of Rs. 2,44,000/- on account of deposit in S.B account. Thus the AO has assessed the total income of assessee at Rs.11