SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

section 271(1)(c), the pre-requisite condition for initiation of penalty is that there should concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, both the conditions are absent in this case, since whatever income was declared was accepted and assessee declared full details of short term capital gains in shares with each script, period of holding

ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL vs. M/S BALAJI FARMS AND REALITY , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed and assessee’s cross-

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)-2, M/S.Balaji Farms & बनाम/ Bhopal Reality, Vs. 158,3Rd Floor, Zone-Ii, M.P.Nagar, Bhopal (Pan:Aalfb9630L) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

section 50C. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in issuing penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) when the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) has merged into reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) subsequently on the same issue for which the penalty has been

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

80,10,110/-). Case record revealed that that as per schedule -10 for Unit-I, Expenditure under Power and fuel was debited as Rs. Page 5 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. 4265430/-, whereas, the accounts shows NIL sales, purchase and stock for the year. Since there was no business operation, the exp. was not an allowable expenditure

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

80,10,110/-). Case record revealed that that as per schedule -10 for Unit-I, Expenditure under Power and fuel was debited as Rs. Page 5 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. 4265430/-, whereas, the accounts shows NIL sales, purchase and stock for the year. Since there was no business operation, the exp. was not an allowable expenditure

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

80,10,110/-). Case record revealed that that as per schedule -10 for Unit-I, Expenditure under Power and fuel was debited as Rs. Page 5 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. 4265430/-, whereas, the accounts shows NIL sales, purchase and stock for the year. Since there was no business operation, the exp. was not an allowable expenditure

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

80,760/- amounting to Rs. 77,45,190/- for AY 2010-11;\n25% of 50,96,575/- amounting to Rs. 12,74,144/- for AY 2011-12. For\nthese sustained additions, the AO imposed impugned penalties u/s 271(1)(c).\n4.\nOriginally, the assessee raised grounds in Form No. 36. Since these\ngrounds are identical in all three years

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE,INDORE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

80,760/- amounting to Rs. 77,45,190/- for AY 2010-11; 25% of 50,96,575/- amounting to Rs. 12,74,144/- for AY 2011-12. For these sustained additions, the AO imposed impugned penalties u/s 271(1)(c). 4. Originally, the assessee raised grounds in Form No. 36. Since these grounds are identical in all three years

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

80,760/- amounting to Rs. 77,45,190/- for AY 2010-11; 25% of 50,96,575/- amounting to Rs. 12,74,144/- for AY 2011-12. For these sustained additions, the AO imposed impugned penalties u/s 271(1)(c). 4. Originally, the assessee raised grounds in Form No. 36. Since these grounds are identical in all three years

SWAN PETRCHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

80,000/-, That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the penalty levied is wrong, bad in law and prayed to be deleted. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) stating that the addition was made by the AO in the assessment order and that

R.M CHEMICALS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/AIT 4 (1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.R.M. Chemicals Acit , 4(1), Pvt.Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ 74,Jumerati, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7154D Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ca & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2023

penalty-order dated 18.10.2018 passed by learned ACIT-4(1), Bhopal [“Ld. AO”] u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal. 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. Page 1 of 11 R.M. Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE vs. KU. NISHITA SINGHAL, MHOW DISTT. INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit-5(1) Indore : Appellant

80,00,000/- which is normally calculated when applying the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act but finally Ld. Assessing Officer levied the penalty of Rs.65 lakhs. It is also not understandable as to how the penalty amount has been worked out u/s

SHRI RAM BABU SINGH,INDORE vs. DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

80 Taxmann.com 147 M.P. However the operation of the said judgment has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) 35314 and 35315 of 2015. Thus the Ld. AR has submitted that in such circumstances the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) is a highly debatable issue and the 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

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 respectively. 2. In the quantum appeal for the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : Page 1 of 7 2 Shri Manjeet Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. ACIT,1(1),Indore. I.T.A.Nos. 242 & 243/Ind/2023

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

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 respectively. 2. In the quantum appeal for the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : Page 1 of 7 2 Shri Manjeet Singh Bhatia, Indore vs. ACIT,1(1),Indore. I.T.A.Nos. 242 & 243/Ind/2023

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

Appeal is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c). In that view of matter, the AO is wrong to\ninvoke the provision of section 271(1)(c) and impose penalty. We, therefore,\ndelete the penalty imposed by AO. The assessee succeeds in this appeal.\n7. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed.\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06/06/2025\nSd/-\n(PARESH M. JOSHI)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER\nIndore

SHRI ABHINAV PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.03.2014 and income was assessed at Rs. 20,80,050/-. The penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

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

SURESH PATEL,DEWAS vs. CIT(A) ,NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

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

271(1)(c) [i.e. penalty qua the addition made in assessment-order] that the assessee consulted his counsel and became aware of the impugned order having been passed by CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, according to the consultation given by counsel, the appeal fee was paid on 24.01.2025 and present appeal was filed without further delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted