THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

71,921/-. However, the assessee contested this addition in further appeals. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) reduced addition to Rs. 3,06,149/-. The assessee was, however, not satisfied and carried matter to ITAT, Indore whereupon the ITAT, in a consolidated order in IT(SS)A No. 89 & 90/Ind/2011 for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 dated 22.04.2013, passed

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

71,921/-. However, the assessee contested this addition in further appeals. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) reduced addition to Rs. 3,06,149/-. The assessee was, however, not satisfied and carried matter to ITAT, Indore whereupon the ITAT, in a consolidated order in IT(SS)A No. 89 & 90/Ind/2011 for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 dated 22.04.2013, passed

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,ANDHERI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

71,921/-. However, the assessee contested this addition in further appeals. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) reduced addition to Rs. 3,06,149/-. The assessee was, however, not satisfied and carried matter to ITAT, Indore whereupon the ITAT, in a consolidated order in IT(SS)A No. 89 & 90/Ind/2011 for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 dated 22.04.2013, passed

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

71,921/-. However, the assessee contested this addition in further appeals. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) reduced addition to Rs. 3,06,149/-. The assessee was, however, not satisfied and carried matter to ITAT, Indore whereupon the ITAT, in a consolidated order in IT(SS)A No. 89 & 90/Ind/2011 for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 dated 22.04.2013, passed

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. DY. CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 271(1)(c ) of the Income tax ct. 03.That the learned Commissioner of Income tax ( appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty on the fact that the ground of appeal in respect disallowance of insert on income tax on which penalty is levied was taken in quantum app al and no submission was made but failed to appreciate that

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1), (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation. —For the purposes of this section, — (a) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniidea Cellular Ltd. Jcit 139-140 Electronics Complex Indore Vs. Pardeshipura Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 2100P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

71,51,801/- levied under section 271C of the Income Tax Act.” 2. The Ld. senior counsel has submitted that an identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in assesse’s own case for A.Y.2011-12 to 2014-15 in ITANo.261 of 2018 & ITANo.266 to 269/Ind/2018 vide order dated 03.05.2023 wherein the tribunal has deleted the penalty levied

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied at Rs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. ITANo.262 to 264/Ind/2018 3,06,72,500/-, Rs.7,28,75,033/- & Rs. 6,71,51,801/- for A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2010-11 respectively, since we have allowed common ground No.1 for statistical purposes for examining the limitation issue of the order passed u/s 271C

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result common ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied at Rs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. ITANo.262 to 264/Ind/2018 3,06,72,500/-, Rs.7,28,75,033/- & Rs. 6,71,51,801/- for A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2010-11 respectively, since we have allowed common ground No.1 for statistical purposes for examining the limitation issue of the order passed u/s 271C

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income as mentioned above. Addition u/s 69: Rs 23,66,799/- 8. It is also seen from the original return of Income that the assessee declared short Term capital gain of Rs 2,30,820/- which was declared nil by the return filed in response

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income as mentioned above. Addition u/s 69: Rs 23,66,799/- 8. It is also seen from the original return of Income that the assessee declared short Term capital gain of Rs 2,30,820/- which was declared nil by the return filed in response

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

71,627.03 Angel Broking (NSE, BSE, F&O) (Rs.84,110.47) Reliance Securities (NSE, BSE, F&O) Rs.1,06,782.82 Profit / (Loss) (Rs.70,602.34) Page 4 of 19 ITA No.209 & 210/Ind/2023 Amit Ashok Agrawal Page 5 of 19 STT Paid (Rs.69,638.00) Net Profit / (Loss) (Rs.1,40,240.34) 2. Ground no.1 is regarding addition of Rs.10,33,000/- on account

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

71,627.03 Angel Broking (NSE, BSE, F&O) (Rs.84,110.47) Reliance Securities (NSE, BSE, F&O) Rs.1,06,782.82 Profit / (Loss) (Rs.70,602.34) Page 4 of 19 ITA No.209 & 210/Ind/2023 Amit Ashok Agrawal Page 5 of 19 STT Paid (Rs.69,638.00) Net Profit / (Loss) (Rs.1,40,240.34) 2. Ground no.1 is regarding addition of Rs.10,33,000/- on account

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