M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Act, again applied the same findings adjudicating the issue relating to 271AAA of the Act and held as follows :- “1. These Tax Appeals arise in common background. We may notice facts from Tax Appeal No.823 of 2017. The appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27.03.2017 raising

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Act, again applied the same findings adjudicating the issue relating to 271AAA of the Act and held as follows :- “1. These Tax Appeals arise in common background. We may notice facts from Tax Appeal No.823 of 2017. The appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27.03.2017 raising

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, again applied the same findings adjudicating the issue relating to 271AAA of the Act and held as follows :- “1. These Tax Appeals arise in common background. We may notice facts from Tax Appeal No.823 of 2017. The appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27.03.2017 raising

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

THE ACIT -4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI MUKESH SANGLA, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2010-11 Acit-4(1), Shri Mukesh Sangla, Indore बनाम/ Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Anaps5579F

54,812/- made on account of levying of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), Shri Mukesh Sangla., Indore whereas the AO strongly established that the case of the assessee clearly comes under the provisions of section

SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee pertaining to Assessment

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Years 2007-08 Shri Akhilesh Kumar Ito-1(2), Gupta, Bhopal Plot No.162, Shop G, Ashirvad Complex, Zone-!, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aenpg0415N Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

54,260/- and is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961". 7. He further submitted that even at the time of imposition of Akhilesh Kumar Gupta penalty, the AO was not sure as to on which limb penalty is to be imposed. On this count only the penalty order is liable to be quashed

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

54,633/- which is not a revenue expenditure and must be treated as capital expenditure, and it is hereby being disallowed and added back to closing stock of the Assessee company. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is hereby being initiated separately for assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. 6. Ld. AO has disallowed

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

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

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

TURNING POINT ESTATES P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniturning Point Estates Pvt. Ltd. Acit 5(1) 6Th Floor, Treasure Island, 11 Indore Vs Tukoganj Main Road . Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aacct 7457 R Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023

54,633/- which is not a revenue expenditure and must be treated as capital expenditure, and it is hereby being disallowed and added back to closing stock of the Assessee company. Page 4 of 9 Turning Point Estates P. Ltd. Page 5 of 9 Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is hereby being initiated separately

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

section 271(1)(c). Copies of show-\ncause notices are placed in respective Paper-Books (Page 4 of Paper-Book of\nAY 2009-10, Page 3 of Paper-Book of AY 2010-11, Page 2 of Paper-Book of\nAY 2012-13). Ultimately, the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.\n51,46,802/-, Rs.4,54

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

section 271(1)(c). Copies of show-\ncause notices are placed in respective Paper-Books (Page 4 of Paper-Book of\nAY 2009-10, Page 3 of Paper-Book of AY 2010-11, Page 2 of Paper-Book of\nAY 2012-13). Ultimately, the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.\n51,46,802/-, Rs.4,54

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

section 271(1)(c). Copies of show-\ncause notices are placed in respective Paper-Books (Page 4 of Paper-Book of\nAY 2009-10, Page 3 of Paper-Book of AY 2010-11, Page 2 of Paper-Book of\nAY 2012-13). Ultimately, the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.\n51,46,802/-, Rs.4,54

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

54,65,000 2,55,10,000 Interest Expenses paid by FY 08-09 82,03,684 PATH FY 09-10 58,55,122 FY 08-09 2,85,25,021 5,52,49,940 Cash transaction of PATH with directors & Relatives FY 09-10 1,46,61,842 5,37,00,603 7.2 All these figures as given