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

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 Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Smt. Baisetty Revathi ITA No.684

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

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

9. Ld. D.R. has opposed the submissions and adopted the arguments which were in ITA 404/Ind/2012. 10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

9. Ld. D.R. has opposed the submissions and adopted the arguments which were in ITA 404/Ind/2012. 10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

9. Ld. D.R. has opposed the submissions and adopted the arguments which were in ITA 404/Ind/2012. 10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

9. Ld. D.R. has opposed the submissions and adopted the arguments which were in ITA 404/Ind/2012. 10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

9. Ld. D.R. has opposed the submissions and adopted the arguments which were in ITA 404/Ind/2012. 10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

9. Ld. D.R. has opposed the submissions and adopted the arguments which were in ITA 404/Ind/2012. 10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

9. Ld. D.R. has opposed the submissions and adopted the arguments which were in ITA 404/Ind/2012. 10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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 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

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

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

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

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

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

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

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

vii a) is related to the actual amount of provision made by the assessee for bad and doubtful debts. The true meaning of the clause, as indicated earlier, is that once a provision for bad and doubtful debts is made by a scheduled bank having rural branches, the assessee is entitled to a deduction which is quantified not with respect