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

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

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

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

Penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC is also initiated separately. 6. The AO has applied the provision of section 69B of the Act for want of any supporting evidence regarding source of excess stock and nature of income which was not found recorded in the books of account at the time of survey. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed

SHRI MANJIT SINGH BHATAI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT RANGE-3, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh on merit after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. In the appeal arising from penalty u/s 271

SHRI MANJIT SINGH BHATAI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT RANGE-3, INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh on merit after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. In the appeal arising from penalty u/s 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR vs. OREF SECURITIES PVT. LTD., MANDSAUR

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Income-Tax Officer, Oref Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mandsaur 69, Agrasen Nagar, बनाम/ Mandsaur Vs. (Revenue/Appellant ) (Assessee /Respondent) Pan: Aabco 0111 G Assessee By Shri Subhash Chand Jain, Ca & Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 30.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.02.2024

68. Simultaneously, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) vide notice dated 22.03.2016 qua the addition made by him in assessment-order. Ultimately, the AO passed penalty-order on 07.03.2019 imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,73,07,050/- treating the impugned addition of Rs. 11,77,50,000/- as concealed income. Aggrieved by penalty-order, the assessee

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO-WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty-order dated 28.09.2015 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. Since these appeals relate to same assessee and the issued involved are inter-related, they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 3. The registry has informed

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty-order dated 28.09.2015 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. Since these appeals relate to same assessee and the issued involved are inter-related, they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 3. The registry has informed

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty-order dated 28.09.2015 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. Since these appeals relate to same assessee and the issued involved are inter-related, they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. 3. The registry has informed

THE ACIT,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which

THE ACIT ,CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which

THE ADDL. CIT RANGE -1, INDORE vs. M/S PRAKASH OILS LTD., DHAR

In the result, the above captioned appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271, howsoever grave the suspicion the AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding of fact. The CO Nos.2 to 4/Ind/2022 suspicion on the AO’s part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate finding of the authority must be based on the material or evidences gathered by him and which

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment of income.” 5.1. Thus, the AO made the addition on account of cash deposit of Rs.10,33,000/- in the saving bank account with CITI Bank, Indore. Before the CIT(A) the assesse claimed that the deposit made in the bank account was from the source of withdrawal from other

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment of income.” 5.1. Thus, the AO made the addition on account of cash deposit of Rs.10,33,000/- in the saving bank account with CITI Bank, Indore. Before the CIT(A) the assesse claimed that the deposit made in the bank account was from the source of withdrawal from other

AATMARAM BARASKAR,BHOPAL vs. AO WARD 5(3), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradaatmaram Baraskar Ito- Ward 5(3) 15, Vrandavan Nagar, Bhopal Ayodhya Bypass, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agnpb 7088C Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2024

section 154 of the Income Tax Act. In the first week of August 2023, I realised that my application for rectification of mistake was not being disposed off and therefore, to safeguard my legal rights I rushed to file the present appeal before Page 2 of 9 ITANo.313/Ind/2023 Aatmaram Baraskar the Hon'ble Tribunal. Due to holidays on 12th, 13th

STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD,GOVINDPURA BHOPAL vs. ACIT/DCIT 1(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Star Delta Transformers Acit/Dcit 1(1) Ltd., Bhopal 92-A Industrial Area बनाम/ Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaccs0399D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

u/s 271AAA which ultimately culminated into passing of penalty-order dated 20.03.2020 imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,35,864/- Page 2 of 13 Star Delta Transformer Ltd. ITA No. 124/Ind/2025 – AY 2011-12 equivalent to 10% of total undisclosed income of Rs. 23,58,643/-. The components of undisclosed income of Rs. 23,58,643/- considered

BALKISHAN KOSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

penalty-order dated 03.02.2022 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The grounds raised in these appeals are as under: I.T.A. No. 04/Ind/2024 (Quantum appeal): 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Faceless Delhi had not considered reasonable and sufficient cause to condone delay u/s 249(3) of the Act, 1961, hence appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified