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

56,76,330 Kalyan Nav Nirman 2010-11 -do- 9,66,510 Kalyan Marble & 2010-11 -do- 6,47,000 Granite Name of assessee A.Y. Penalty u/s Amount Rs. 271(1)(c ) Keti-T 2010-11 -do- 72,81,800 Construction Keti Sangam 2010-11 -do- 85,43,360 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2009-10 -do- 6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti

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

56,76,330 Kalyan Nav Nirman 2010-11 -do- 9,66,510 Kalyan Marble & 2010-11 -do- 6,47,000 Granite Name of assessee A.Y. Penalty u/s Amount Rs. 271(1)(c ) Keti-T 2010-11 -do- 72,81,800 Construction Keti Sangam 2010-11 -do- 85,43,360 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2009-10 -do- 6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti

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

56,76,330 Kalyan Nav Nirman 2010-11 -do- 9,66,510 Kalyan Marble & 2010-11 -do- 6,47,000 Granite Name of assessee A.Y. Penalty u/s Amount Rs. 271(1)(c ) Keti-T 2010-11 -do- 72,81,800 Construction Keti Sangam 2010-11 -do- 85,43,360 Infrastructure Keti Sangam 2009-10 -do- 6,28,330 Infrastructure Keti

SHRI DIPAK KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT,OSD, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

56,681/- including additional income of Rs. 62,50,000/- as accepted during the course of search. A.5] The assessing officer however initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in respect of such additional Deepak and Pankaj Kalani /ITANos.700 & 701/Ind/2019 income of Rs. 62,50,000/- and subsequently levied penalty

SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

56,681/- including additional income of Rs. 62,50,000/- as accepted during the course of search. A.5] The assessing officer however initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in respect of such additional Deepak and Pankaj Kalani /ITANos.700 & 701/Ind/2019 income of Rs. 62,50,000/- and subsequently levied penalty

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

u/s 271D of the Act, it is also clear that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thapar Homes Limited reported in 159 taxmann.com 450 has reiterated its stand taken in the earlier case of same name bearing ITA No.19/2021, order dated 11.09.2023, which has also been relied upon by the Ld. AR. Through this order

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

56,492/- and 2,98,69,476/-; the AO therefore imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. vide order dated 28.06.2019. The AO’s order is re-produced below for an immediate reference: “3. During assessment proceeding the AO has disallowed the depreciation of Rs. 2,10,80,516/- u/s 32(1) of the Income

M/S. PANJWANI PACKAGING P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

56,050/levied u/s. 271 (1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1.The petitioner submits that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore, has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without determining the amount of tax sought to be evaded, as required under the said provision, sought to pending effect

M/S. PANJWANI PACKAGING P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

56,050/levied u/s. 271 (1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1.The petitioner submits that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore, has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without determining the amount of tax sought to be evaded, as required under the said provision, sought to pending effect

M/S. PANJWANI PACKAGING P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

56,050/levied u/s. 271 (1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1.The petitioner submits that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore, has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without determining the amount of tax sought to be evaded, as required under the said provision, sought to pending effect

M/S. PANJWANI PACKAGING P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

56,050/levied u/s. 271 (1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1.The petitioner submits that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore, has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without determining the amount of tax sought to be evaded, as required under the said provision, sought to pending effect

M/S. PANJWANI PACKAGING P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

56,050/levied u/s. 271 (1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1.The petitioner submits that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore, has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without determining the amount of tax sought to be evaded, as required under the said provision, sought to pending effect

M/S. PANJWANI PACKAGING P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

56,050/levied u/s. 271 (1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1.The petitioner submits that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Indore, has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without determining the amount of tax sought to be evaded, as required under the said provision, sought to pending effect

SHRIMATI SHASHI YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

56,741/- from his company M/s. SSP Enterprises Pvt. Ltd and the Ld.A.O treated this loan amount as dividend u/s 2(22)(e ) of the Act and added to total income of the assessee and assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act by assessing total income at Rs.8,93,500/- (loss of Rs.6,24,742/-). Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

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

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

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

271 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 371TR 151 (SC) Nai Dunia News &Network Pvt Ltd. 171TJ 289 Trib.lndore AO made adhoc disallowance for expenses holding that "some" vouchers were not verifiable. HELD, no specific defect is pointed out. 'A' has maintained proper books which has not been rejected. B. ACIT vs.Popular Art Palace

M/S AKSHAY SHAKTI SHIKSHA AVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Bleita Nos. 518 To 520/Ind/2016 A.Ys. 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

56,684/-, Rs. 58,01,313/- and Rs. 63,45,792/- for the assessment years 2007-08, 2009-10 and 2010-11, respectively. Against the impugned additions, the assessee did not prefer any appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and accepted to pay due taxes on the assessee income. 5. Subsequent thereto, penalty proceedings u/s 271