MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

90,00,000/- in AY 2018-19 upon both assessees u/s 271AAB(1A). The penalties were computed as equal to 60% of additional incomes. Aggrieved, the assessees filed first-appeal to CIT(A) and made a detailed submission but did not find any favour from CIT(A) who upheld penalties. Now, the assessees have come in next appeals before

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

90,00,000/- in AY 2018-19 upon both assessees u/s 271AAB(1A). The penalties were computed as equal to 60% of additional incomes. Aggrieved, the assessees filed first-appeal to CIT(A) and made a detailed submission but did not find any favour from CIT(A) who upheld penalties. Now, the assessees have come in next appeals before

PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,MHOW vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

90%, depending on whether the undisclosed income has been admitted or not, whether the due taxes have been paid or not, and other conditions; that the perusal of the said section reveals that the penalty u/s 271AAB is levied only for concealment of income and the rates of levy of penalty vary according to the level of compliance made

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

271(1)(c) stating that such disallowances have been made merely on the ground of difference in opinion in between the assessee and the revenue, wherein assessee being engaged in the main business activity of renting of immovable property offered the income under the head business and profession but the Ld. AO was of the view that such income should

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

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

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

90,150 Assessed income 1,08,40,970 5,18,15,540 1,31,01,170 (iii) Against quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/ disallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT, Indore

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

90,150 Assessed income 1,08,40,970 5,18,15,540 1,31,01,170 (iii) Against quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/ disallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT, Indore

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

90,150\nAssessed income\n1,08,40,970 5,18,15,540 1,31,01,170\n(iii)\nAgainst quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters\nin first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/\ndisallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still\naggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT,\nIndore

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

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

Appeal is allowed

90,945/-. The AO noticed\nthat the assessee has shown following amounts as liability.\nParticulars\nAmount\nAdvance against I Service\n2,56,125/-\nAdvance against II Service\n6,34,275/-\nAdvance against III Service\n10,43,825/-\nClaims against settlement\n26,21,500/-\nAdvance from Customer\n7,07,844/-\nTotal\n52,63,569/-\n4. The assessee had collected the above

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

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

u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 & 22.02.2021. Ld. AR/assessee is harping on the provision of section 273B, therefore at first we re-produce the same: “273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, ……., clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, no penalty shall be imposable

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

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

u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 & 22.02.2021. Ld. AR/assessee is harping on the provision of section 273B, therefore at first we re-produce the same: “273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, ……., clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, no penalty shall be imposable

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

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

u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 & 22.02.2021. Ld. AR/assessee is harping on the provision of section 273B, therefore at first we re-produce the same: “273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, ……., clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, no penalty shall be imposable

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

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

u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 & 22.02.2021. Ld. AR/assessee is harping on the provision of section 273B, therefore at first we re-produce the same: “273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, ……., clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, no penalty shall be imposable

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

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

u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 & 22.02.2021. Ld. AR/assessee is harping on the provision of section 273B, therefore at first we re-produce the same: “273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, ……., clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, no penalty shall be imposable

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

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

u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 & 22.02.2021. Ld. AR/assessee is harping on the provision of section 273B, therefore at first we re-produce the same: “273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, ……., clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, no penalty shall be imposable

ROHIT DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

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

u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 & 22.02.2021. Ld. AR/assessee is harping on the provision of section 273B, therefore at first we re-produce the same: “273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, ……., clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, no penalty shall be imposable