PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

set aside assessment proceedings once again asked the Page 5 of 29 Prem Chawla & other ITA Nos. 673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024– AY 2000-2001to 2006-07 assessee why the addition of Rs.9,04,325/- made in the original assessment (first assessment order) should not be again made to the total income. In response thereto to this, the assessee submitted

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

set aside assessment proceedings once again asked the Page 5 of 29 Prem Chawla & other ITA Nos. 673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024– AY 2000-2001to 2006-07 assessee why the addition of Rs.9,04,325/- made in the original assessment (first assessment order) should not be again made to the total income. In response thereto to this, the assessee submitted

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

loss falling under the provisions of Section 43(5) of the Act and can be set off only against as speculative profit. Subsequently Ld. A.O initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

loss falling under the provisions of Section 43(5) of the Act and can be set off only against as speculative profit. Subsequently Ld. A.O initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

loss of Rs.1,03,28,211/-. The Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and levied the penalty in respect of this addition made by disallowing the expenses while passing the order dated 26.03.2018. The assesse challenged the order of the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) before

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

loss account was prepared and income was offered and proportionate deduction of cost of the project was claimed. All these facts are not disputed in the assessment order and also in the penalty order. The AO has also not made any addition on account of inflated project cost to the returned income of this year, nor any part

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that search u/s 132 of the Act were conducted at the residence

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that search u/s 132 of the Act were conducted at the residence

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, to urge, to alter or to amend any of the ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that search u/s 132 of the Act were conducted at the residence

SHRIMATI SHASHI YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

loss of Rs.6,24,742/-). Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) at Rs.12,50,000/- was initiated. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. 4. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the legality of the penalty proceedings as well as 3 Smt. Shashi Yadav raising grounds on merits challenging the penalty

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Loss of Rs.19,30,73,905/- declared in the income tax return filed on 31.10.2005. Case selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed on 19.12.2007. After making 3 STI(India) Ltd. ITANo.42/Ind/2017 various disallowances at Rs.6,13,67,779/- income assessed at Rs.13,16,16,126/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

loss not allowable for set off against any other income except profit from 2 M/s. Swan Petrochemicals Pvt.Ltd speculation business. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings after recording the satisfaction in the assessment order as well as by issuing show cause notice dated 28.12.2016 and thereby levied the penalty u/s 271

M/S. KRISHNA SOYA PRODUCTS PVT. LTD,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

set off in future in view of its only change of income from one head to another head. Therefore the Tribunal has held that it would not be a fit case for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ). The Ld.AR further relied in the case of CIT V Aurica Investment and Securities Ltd (2009) 310 ITR 121 (Del) wherein

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

271(1)(c) of the Act in the appellant's case. Accordingly, the penalty levied of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- stands deleted. Ground no. 1 to 4 are treated to have been allowed.” 6. Before us, the Ld. DR for revenue/appellant raised following contentions to oppose the impugned order passed by CIT(A) and support the penalty imposed

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

271(1)(c) of the Act in the appellant's case. Accordingly, the penalty levied of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- stands deleted. Ground no. 1 to 4 are treated to have been allowed.” 6. Before us, the Ld. DR for revenue/appellant raised following contentions to oppose the impugned order passed by CIT(A) and support the penalty imposed

TURNING POINT ESTATES P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniturning Point Estates Pvt. Ltd. Acit 5(1) 6Th Floor, Treasure Island, 11 Indore Vs Tukoganj Main Road . Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aacct 7457 R Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023

loss of Rs.1,03,28,211/-. The Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and levied the penalty in respect of this addition made by disallowing the expenses while passing the order dated 26.03.2018. The assesse challenged the order of the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) before

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. DY. CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2012-13

loss. Under these given facts and circumstances the assessee case is squarely covered by this CBDT Circular No.25/2015 dated 31.12.2015 and no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. We, thus, set

SHRI RAMASWAMY NOHOHARAN,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(1), INDORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

set off for commission income of Rs.88,500/- disclosed in income tax return, made addition for Rs.1,24,495/-. The additions were also made for unexplained investment at Rs.44,000/- and low house hold withdrawals at Rs.25,000/-. Income assessed at Rs.3,74,005/- Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate