INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE vs. SEWA SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT TILLOR KHURAD, INDORE

271(1)(c) of the\nAct. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is\nconcerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore,\nno such penalty could be levied. These appeals are,\naccordingly, dismissed.\"\n4.6 We are also of the considered opinion basis judgment of this\nTribunal in case of RVT Technologies Ltd ITA No.275 to\n277/Ind/2023 dated 30.04.2024 (Page

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. AASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69A r.w.s. 115BBE. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated for concealment of particulars of income for AY 2016-17.” 6.1 The AO has also compiled the details of the transactions in the tabulated form giving of the page number of the seized material, the name of the lenders, date of the loan along with amount which

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, LOCATION

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69A r.w.s. 115BBE. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated for concealment of particulars of income for AY 2016-17.” 6.1 The AO has also compiled the details of the transactions in the tabulated form giving of the page number of the seized material, the name of the lenders, date of the loan along with amount which

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69A r.w.s. 115BBE. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated for concealment of particulars of income for AY 2016-17.” 6.1 The AO has also compiled the details of the transactions in the tabulated form giving of the page number of the seized material, the name of the lenders, date of the loan along with amount which

ANIL DHAKAD,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-I, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69A r.w.s. 115BBE. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated for concealment of particulars of income for AY 2016-17.” 6.1 The AO has also compiled the details of the transactions in the tabulated form giving of the page number of the seized material, the name of the lenders, date of the loan along with amount which

NAKODA REALITIES,INDORE vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69A r.w.s. 115BBE. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated for concealment of particulars of income for AY 2016-17.” 6.1 The AO has also compiled the details of the transactions in the tabulated form giving of the page number of the seized material, the name of the lenders, date of the loan along with amount which

NAKODA REALITIES,INDORE vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69A r.w.s. 115BBE. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated for concealment of particulars of income for AY 2016-17.” 6.1 The AO has also compiled the details of the transactions in the tabulated form giving of the page number of the seized material, the name of the lenders, date of the loan along with amount which

NAKODA REALITIES,INDORE vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69A r.w.s. 115BBE. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated for concealment of particulars of income for AY 2016-17.” 6.1 The AO has also compiled the details of the transactions in the tabulated form giving of the page number of the seized material, the name of the lenders, date of the loan along with amount which

RAM BABU SINGH,BIHAR vs. THE ITO-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ram Babu Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Near Gayatri Mandir, 2(1), बनाम/ Saharsa, Bhopal Vs. Bihar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cufps2957D Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any Explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and Page 10 of 13 Shri Ram Babu Singh, Bihar ITA No. 17/Ind/2024

MR GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

Accordingly. Thus, this ground is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Dcit, बनाम/ 38, Ram Mohalla, Central Circle 2, Ratlam Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aglpa8863C Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.09.2023

69A invites the consequences of Section 115BBE and surcharge provided under Section 2(9) of the Finance Act, 2016. When it stands Page 27 of 33 Mr. Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam ITA No.71/Ind/2022 – AY 2017-18 enhanced from 01.04.2017, for every assessment carried out in that year, related to the previous year, the rates as applicable

SHREE TEKCHANDJI MAHARAJ TRUST,UJJAIN vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, UJJAIN

69A of\nthe Act. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the\nAct are initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income.\nPenalty proceedings u/s.271F of the Act has been initiated\nseparately for Non-filer for the A.Y 2016-17.”\n2.11 The Assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned\nAssessment Order” Order" prefers the first appeal u/s 246A

HIRAMANI AJIT KUMAR JAIN,RATLAM vs. ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Hiramani Ajit Kumar Jain, Income Tax Officer-1, 77, Tashakand Marg, Ratlam Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agcph3330A Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2024 O R D E R

penalty orders u/s 271(1) (b) & 271F. 2 Shri Hiramani Ajit Kumar Jain 1.2 That the ADDL/JCIT(A) 2 Hyderabad has erred in passing order without application of mind. 1.3 That the ADDL/JCIT(A) 2 Hyderabad has wrongly drawn inference that Assessee has availed Vivad se Viswas Scheme against the demand raised through re-assessment order dated 30/11/2018. 2. That

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ WARSI,PIPARIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result, the Impugned order is set aside as and by way\nof a remand back to the file of the Ld

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore,\nadded back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty\nproceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961, are separately initiated for concealment of the\nincome by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of\nincome.\n[Addition of Rs. 13,70,000/-]\n2.3 That the assessee being

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

IKON OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

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

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

u/s 144 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y.2013-14. ITANo.53 & 54/Ind/2024 Ikon Overseas Private Ltd. 2. There is a delay of 41 days in quantum appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the Director of the assesse

IKON OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL

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

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

u/s 144 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y.2013-14. ITANo.53 & 54/Ind/2024 Ikon Overseas Private Ltd. 2. There is a delay of 41 days in quantum appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the Director of the assesse