ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL vs. M/S BALAJI FARMS AND REALITY , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed and assessee’s cross-

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2, M/S.Balaji Farms & बनाम/ Bhopal Reality, Vs. 158,3Rd Floor, Zone-Ii, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aalfb9630L) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 50C. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in issuing penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) when the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) has merged into reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) subsequently on the same issue for which the penalty has been

THE ITO 2(2), INDORE vs. SMT. MANORAMA DEVI AGRAWAL, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.51,69,316/-. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) thereby deleted the penalty in respect of the valuation adopted by the A.O. by invoking provisions of section 50C

THE ITO, -3(2), INDORE vs. SHRI VIKRAMADITYA RANA, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(2) Shri Vikramaditya Rana, Indore 5-E, Lakshya Regency, 15/2, Old बनाम/ Palasia, Indore Vs. (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Abvpj8461L Appellant By Shri V.J. Voricha, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Tribhuvan Sachdeva Adv. Date Of Hearing: 10.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R

section 50C. The Assessing Officer has however rejected the contention of the appellant holding that it is established that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of such income (additions confirmed by CIT(A)) and hence concealment thereof, evading the tax to extent by defrauding the interest of revenue. 5. To levy penalty u/s 271

MOHINI SRIVASTAVA,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Mohini Shrivastava, Ito 1(1), Hig-2/3,Geetanjali Complex, Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Acwps6390R Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2024 O R D E R

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The A.O has levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the addition made u/s 50C of the I.T. Act to the capital gain of the assessee. The assessee has declared the sale consideration of Rs.23,00,000/- as actual consideration received

RAJEEV KAPOOR,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajeev Kapoor, Acit-2(1), बनाम/ C/O Arera Auto Centre, Bhopal Vs. E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Adupk1034D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the AO had erred in levying and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, where, in the show cause notices issued, the AO has not specified the limb of Section 271

M/S SIDDHULA;L,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2(2) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

section 50C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, i.e. Valuation Rules. (4) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B which is unjustified. (5) The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the levy of penalty u/s 271

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the 'Act' are initiated separately. After rejection of claim LTCG as claimed by the assessee is being computed separately in forthcoming paras of the body of the assessment order. Addition - Rs.8,61,000/-. 3. Computation of LTCG: Description Amount Computation Full value of Consideration (sale Rs.410000/- consideration received in lieu of sale

SHRI PURSHOTTAM KHATRI , BHOPAL vs. ITO 3(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

50C and Rs.3,35,000/- as shown by the assesse without considering the explanation offered during appellate proceedings. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A() erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.130,493/- claimed u/s 48 of the Act being index cost of expenditure incurred for acquiring capital asset stating that