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

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

56,55,810/- declared by assessee in the return u/s 148 vide Para 3 of\nassessment-order dated 22.12.2019. The AO also noted, in the very same\npara, that the assessee had not filed (original) return for AY 2014-15.\nThe AO also initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of\nincome. Simultaneously, the AO also issued notice

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

Appeal is allowed

2)\nof the Act. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on\n15.10.2013 determining total income of Rs.1,46,90,945/-. The AO noticed\nthat the assessee has shown following amounts as liability.\nParticulars\nAmount\nAdvance against I Service\n2,56,125/-\nAdvance against II Service\n6,34,275/-\nAdvance against III Service\n10,43,825/-\nClaims

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the I..T. Act are initiated separately. 11. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions:- Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 The facts of the case are that the appellant is a society which was established on 04.12.1996 basically for development of downtrodden/poor people of society

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) of the I..T. Act are initiated separately. 11. Per contra ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to the following written submissions:- Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 The facts of the case are that the appellant is a society which was established on 04.12.1996 basically for development of downtrodden/poor people of society

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income tax act.\n4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming the impugned addition made by the Ld. AO grossly ignoring the various details and documentary evidences on record.”\nGround No. 2 to 4:\n4. By means of these grounds, the assessee has challenged

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

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

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

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

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