SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee pertaining to Assessment

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Years 2007-08 Shri Akhilesh Kumar Ito-1(2), Gupta, Bhopal Plot No.162, Shop G, Ashirvad Complex, Zone-!, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aenpg0415N Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

vi) CIT vs. Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Ltd. 88 CCH 0036(SC) (vii)CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory 83 CCH 0282 (Karnataka HC) (viii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd V/s CIT (1999) 157 CTR 0249. (ix) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Kulwant Singh Akhilesh Kumar Gupta Bhatia ITA No.9 to 14 of 2018 (M.P. High Court) (x) Principal

M/S. STI (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessing officer has not mentioned the limb for which penalty has been levied. As regards the merits of the case he submitted that the disallowance/additions on which 4 STI(India) Ltd. ITANo.42/Ind/2017 penalty have been levied revenue authorities have not doubted the genuineness of the expenses and the disallowance

SHRI VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

u/s 133A during the course of survey proceedings. Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same while disposing the appeal. [PB 11- 23] 7. From the assessment order, the additions made are without reference to any specific section under which they are made. It merely states - "Payments made out of undisclosed sources". [AO Para 7] 8. Even

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

9 appeals bearing ITA Nos. 1341/Ind/2016, 1343/Ind/2016, 1342/Ind/2016, 516/Ind/2017, 515/Ind/2016, 513/Ind/2017, 1344/Ind/2016, 514/Ind/2017 and 512/Ind/2017 relating to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On going through the grounds of appeal filed by different assessees we find that they are common and the assessee has challenged the legality of the notices issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

9 appeals bearing ITA Nos. 1341/Ind/2016, 1343/Ind/2016, 1342/Ind/2016, 516/Ind/2017, 515/Ind/2016, 513/Ind/2017, 1344/Ind/2016, 514/Ind/2017 and 512/Ind/2017 relating to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On going through the grounds of appeal filed by different assessees we find that they are common and the assessee has challenged the legality of the notices issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

9 appeals bearing ITA Nos. 1341/Ind/2016, 1343/Ind/2016, 1342/Ind/2016, 516/Ind/2017, 515/Ind/2016, 513/Ind/2017, 1344/Ind/2016, 514/Ind/2017 and 512/Ind/2017 relating to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On going through the grounds of appeal filed by different assessees we find that they are common and the assessee has challenged the legality of the notices issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1

M/S TRUBA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the principle is applicable with reference to the other provisions also which are penal in nature. Cancellation of registration deprives the assessee of the various benefits which otherwise accrue and hence the provisions are to be considered as in the nature of punishment. 4.5 The Id. A.R. submitted that, the order passed

M/S KEVAL (INDIA) LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT-R 1(1) , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 43(5) but the test is settlement of the transaction entered into by the assessee or on his Keval (India) Ltd ITA No.652 & 653/Ind/2017 behalf otherwise shown by actual delivery of the commodity." It it a case of difference of opinion only. It is settled law that in case were an issue is debatable, penalty u/s. 271(1

M/S KEVAL ( INDIA ) LTD,INDORE vs. DCIT-R-1 (1) , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 43(5) but the test is settlement of the transaction entered into by the assessee or on his Keval (India) Ltd ITA No.652 & 653/Ind/2017 behalf otherwise shown by actual delivery of the commodity." It it a case of difference of opinion only. It is settled law that in case were an issue is debatable, penalty u/s. 271(1

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

9. On receiving the show cause notice assessee made detailed written submissions which read as follows:- 1. With reference to the show cause notice issued to us, as a general submission against all of your observations, we would like to bring to your attention that the explanation (2) to sub-section 1 of section 263 has been inserted w.e.f 1/6/2015

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

9. On receiving the show cause notice assessee made detailed written submissions which read as follows:- 1. With reference to the show cause notice issued to us, as a general submission against all of your observations, we would like to bring to your attention that the explanation (2) to sub-section 1 of section 263 has been inserted w.e.f 1/6/2015

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

9. On receiving the show cause notice assessee made detailed written submissions which read as follows:- 1. With reference to the show cause notice issued to us, as a general submission against all of your observations, we would like to bring to your attention that the explanation (2) to sub-section 1 of section 263 has been inserted w.e.f 1/6/2015

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

vi) Now, the assessee has come before us in next appeals. 3. Thus, the present appeals before us are against the penalties of Rs. 8,00,000/-, Rs. 24,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- imposed by AO for AY 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Ld. Representatives of both side are ad idem that the concealed

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

vi) Now, the assessee has come before us in next appeals. 3. Thus, the present appeals before us are against the penalties of Rs. 8,00,000/-, Rs. 24,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- imposed by AO for AY 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Ld. Representatives of both side are ad idem that the concealed

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

vi) Now, the assessee has come before us in next appeals. 3. Thus, the present appeals before us are against the penalties of Rs. 8,00,000/-, Rs. 24,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- imposed by AO for AY 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Ld. Representatives of both side are ad idem that the concealed

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

u/s 271AAA of the Act CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 ; CIT v. Radha KishanGoel [2005] 278 ITR 454, followed. (Para 16)" 4.02 Your Honour, the provisions of section 271AAA are pari materia with that of erstwhile Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act having its application for grant of immunity from penalty under

M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

vi. CIT vs. Kevin Process Technologies 40 Taxmann.com 249 (Guj) vii. CIT vs. Pathankur Primary Co-op. Bank 40 Taxmann.com 283(Pun) viii. ACIT vs. Indore Premier Cooperative Bank in ITA No.71/2015 dated 06.10.2015 5.5 From the record it is seen that the claim of the appellant u/s 36(1)(vii(a) was disallowed following the line of argument taken

THE ACIT-3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit- 3(1) M/S. Narmada Malwa Gramin Indore Bank, बनाम/ 201, Arcade Silver, 56 Shops, New Vs. Palasia, Indore (M.P.) (Revenue ) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aaccn2847F Assessment Year: 2008-09

vi. CIT vs. Kevin Process Technologies 40 Taxmann.com 249 (Guj) vii. CIT vs. Pathankur Primary Co-op. Bank 40 Taxmann.com 283(Pun) viii. ACIT vs. Indore Premier Cooperative Bank in ITA No.71/2015 dated 06.10.2015 5.5 From the record it is seen that the claim of the appellant u/s 36(1)(vii(a) was disallowed following the line of argument taken