SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR, INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR, INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A),NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 for admission and consideration of additional evidences (copy at Pages 5-50 of Paper-Book) but the Ld. CIT(A) has passed impugned order without taking cognizance of assessee’s reply. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly treated assessee’s first-appeal as deficient on the footing of non-payment of advance

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 for admission and consideration of additional evidences (copy at Pages 5-50 of Paper-Book) but the Ld. CIT(A) has passed impugned order without taking cognizance of assessee’s reply. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly treated assessee’s first-appeal as deficient on the footing of non-payment of advance

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

271(1)(c) and ultimately imposed penalty of Rs. 70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated 18.09.2023. Aggrieved by both orders i.e. assessment-order as well as penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals before CIT(A) and contested but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeals before ITAT. 3. Since these appeals

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. PARTNER OF ERSTWHILE FIRM, DHAR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

271(1)(c) and ultimately imposed penalty of Rs. 70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated 18.09.2023. Aggrieved by both orders i.e. assessment-order as well as penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals before CIT(A) and contested but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeals before ITAT. 3. Since these appeals

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)(c) is initiated. Addition: Rs. 2,70,15,725/-” 9. During first-appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition by observing and holding thus: “5.1 Ground No.1: Through this ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.2,70,15,725/- on account of current liabilities. The appellant company is a builder

AMEEN UDDIN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(4), BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ameen Uddin, I.T.O., 11, Kumharpura Road, 3(4), बनाम/ Galla Bazar, Bhopal Shahjahanabad, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaupu 8393 G Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.07.2023

section 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment year 2008-09, on the grounds mentioned in appeal memo. 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. Page 1 of 8 Shri Amin Uddin, Bhopal Assessment year 2008-09 3. Brief facts leading to present appeal are such that the Department received