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

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

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 12.09.2022 of AY 2014-15 are dismissed as not maintainable as per facts available on record on merits as well without prejudice Page 12 of 25 MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH ITA No. 790&791/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2014-15 to their dismissal in limine, consequent to its rejection involving inordinate delay in filing the instant two appeals

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 12.09.2022 of AY 2014-15 are dismissed as not maintainable as per facts available on record on merits as well without prejudice Page 12 of 25 MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH ITA No. 790&791/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2014-15 to their dismissal in limine, consequent to its rejection involving inordinate delay in filing the instant two appeals

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, 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. 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, 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

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (b) As regards the break up of income of Rs. 41,07,848/-, complete details were filed before the Ld. A.O with the computation of income. In the show cause notice issued by Ld. A.O he himself has referred to the interest income received by the assessee on the hundis which form

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (b) As regards the break up of income of Rs. 41,07,848/-, complete details were filed before the Ld. A.O with the computation of income. In the show cause notice issued by Ld. A.O he himself has referred to the interest income received by the assessee on the hundis which form

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (b) As regards the break up of income of Rs. 41,07,848/-, complete details were filed before the Ld. A.O with the computation of income. In the show cause notice issued by Ld. A.O he himself has referred to the interest income received by the assessee on the hundis which form

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

NARENDRA KUMAR SHATILAL JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Narendra Kumar Shantilal Jain Pr. Cit -1 Huf Indore Prop. M/S Chandan Garments Khutal Mohite Complex, 2Nd Floor, 27/36, बनाम/Vs. Subhash Chowk, Rajwada Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aachn 5568 E Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 आदेश / / O R D E R / /

u/s 115BBE was 30%+3% Cess as on first day of the Previous-Year i.e. 01.04.2016, therefore the tax-rate of 30%+3% Cess shall apply to the present case and not the higher rate, hence the assessment-order does not cause prejudice to the interest of revenue. The reason of projecting such a claim by assessee is that

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