SAROJ GUPTA,UJJAIN vs. ITO NFAC, LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL OFFICE UJJAIN

56,55,810/- without taking\ncognizance of the total income of Rs. 14,38,430/- already assessed by\ndepartment as per original return filed by assessee u/s 139(4). Thus, the AO\nhas imposed penalty for deemed concealment of income in terms of\nExplanation 3 to section 271

C.I. FINLEASE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1(1), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

56,125/-\nAdvance against II Service\n6,34,275/-\nAdvance against III Service\n10,43,825/-\nClaims against settlement\n26,21,500/-\nAdvance from Customer\n7,07,844/-\nTotal\n52,63,569/-\n4. The assessee had collected the above sums against Ist, IInd and IIIrd\nservice. The assessee had also collected a sum of Rs.45,91,800/- for claims\nagainst

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.22 As per above discussion, the addition u/s 68 is coming to Rs. 11,77,50,000/- and addition u/s. 56(2)(viib) is coming to Rs. 11,49,18,112/- only. As double addition cannot be made, therefore addition u/s 68 as discussed above

DHANRAJ DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT (1), INDORE

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], the assessee has filed this appeal on the following grounds: “1. The penalty levied by AO is null and void as the notice issued is vague as to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The penalty levied by AO is null and void

MADHYA BHARAT INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD,INDORE vs. NFAC NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

56(2)(viib) in respect of share application\nmoney. Thereafter, vide penalty-order dated 22.01.2022, the Ld. AO also\nimposed penalty of Rs.43,97,379/- u/s 271(1)(c) qua the addition of Rs.\n1,33,00,000/- made in assessment-order. Against aforesaid assessment-order,\nthe assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has already decided

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

56, Khargone Road Bedia, Delhi Vs. Khargone (PAN: ACFPI8543M) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date of 22.04.2025 Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO ACIT DYCIT FACELESS ASSESSMENT, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Penalty preceding u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 for non compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of IT act dated 03.02.2022 is being initiated.” 5.5 It is manifest from the assessment order that the same was passed by the AO without considering the reply filed by the assessee vide acknowledgment dated 28.02.2022 as well as without considering

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Penalty preceding u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 for non compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) of IT act dated 03.02.2022 is being initiated.” 5.5 It is manifest from the assessment order that the same was passed by the AO without considering the reply filed by the assessee vide acknowledgment dated 28.02.2022 as well as without considering

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

penalty\nunder section 271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

penalty\nunder section 271.\"\nAdditional evidences are normally not allowed so as to bring finality to\nassessment proceedings. However, this cannot be at the cost of natural\njustice. Therefore, Rule 46A(1)(b) & 46A(1)(c) give opportunity to appellant to\nproduce additional evidences in cases where an appellant is prevented by\nsufficient cause from producing such evidences. The rule

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDA DEVI TAPARIA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also\ninitiated separately for concealment of particulars of\nincome as mentioned above\".\nFurther an addition of Rs.2,30,820 of STCG was also made to\nincome which was Shown as NIL in ROI. It may be noted that the\nappellant has accepted the said addition and same has not been\nagitated before

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDADEVI TAPARIA ,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTREQ, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also\ninitiated separately for concealment of particulars of\nincome as mentioned above\".\nFurther an addition of Rs.2,30,820 of STCG was also made to\nincome which was Shown as NIL in ROI. It may be noted that the\nappellant has accepted the said addition and same has not been\nagitated before

CUMMINS TECHNOLOGIES INDIA (P) LTD.,DEWAS vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanicommins Technologies India Acit, Circle -1(1) Private Limited Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area No.2, A.B. Road, M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabct2018B Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Pinkesh Vakharia Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

271(1)(c) without considering the fact that transfer pricing adjustment has been made on account of difference of opinion, interpretation of provisions of law, etc. and not due to any concealment of or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Appellant.” 2. The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal vide application dated 14th August

BHAGWAT PRASAD MALVIYA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

u/s 54B and 54F without proper justification. 9.11 This ground lacks merit in view of the factual analysis done by the AO. The breakup of disallowance is clearly justified as follows: Section 54B: 9.12 The exemption was claimed on multiple purchases, but only the land purchased on 21.12.2013 for Rs. 35,49,845 was within the permitted time window post

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey