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

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 SHRI 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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. PUMARTH PROPERTIES & HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) I, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 M/S. Pumarth Properties & Acit(Central)-1, Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Indore 5/5A, Navratan Bagh, Near Geeta Bhawan Square, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaccp0838Q Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr.Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Date Of Hearing 07.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 14.03.2019

90% of the undisclosed income. Ld. A.O also observed that the assessee has not substantiated the manner of earning the undisclosed income. 4. Against the levy of penalty assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and pleaded that the assessee’s case falls under section 27AAB(1)(a) of the Act and penalty of 10% only needs to be levied

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

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 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

SHRI SURESH LILANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

271(1)(c) of the Act, The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalties in following cases: Name of assessee A.Y. Penalty u/s 271AAB Amount Rs. Rajendra Mansukhani 2013-14 271AAB 3,00,000 Suresh Lilani 2013-14 271AAB 90,000 Umesh Lilani 2013-14 271AAB 1,10,000 Gopal Maheshwari 2013-14 271AAB 3,00,383 Pulkit Maheshwari

SHRI UMESH LILANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) I, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

271(1)(c) of the Act, The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalties in following cases: Name of assessee A.Y. Penalty u/s 271AAB Amount Rs. Rajendra Mansukhani 2013-14 271AAB 3,00,000 Suresh Lilani 2013-14 271AAB 90,000 Umesh Lilani 2013-14 271AAB 1,10,000 Gopal Maheshwari 2013-14 271AAB 3,00,383 Pulkit Maheshwari

SHRI RAJENDRA MANSUKHANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL) I, INDORE

In the result, all the seven appeals filed by different Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad1. Ita No. 172/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Ita No. 169/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 3.Ita No. 170/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 4.Ita No. 9/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 5.Ita No. 10/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 6.Ita No. 11/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 7. Ita No. 12/Ind/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14

271(1)(c) of the Act, The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalties in following cases: Name of assessee A.Y. Penalty u/s 271AAB Amount Rs. Rajendra Mansukhani 2013-14 271AAB 3,00,000 Suresh Lilani 2013-14 271AAB 90,000 Umesh Lilani 2013-14 271AAB 1,10,000 Gopal Maheshwari 2013-14 271AAB 3,00,383 Pulkit Maheshwari

CIT-2, BHOPAL vs. SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, RAISEN

In the result, both the appeals of revenue in case of Sewa

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Raisen Bharkacha Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aafts5908N Assessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Maryadit, Bhaisaya Badi Vs. Raisen (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaak9049E

90,726/- Disallowance of provisions for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) 95,00,753/- Total 1,47,91,479/- Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti Disallowance of interest 51,59,870/- Disallowance of provisions for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) 1,08,41,875/ Total 1,60,01,745/- 3 Sewa & Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti Yaryadit