ITO-1, ITARSI vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR SONI, ITARSI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Years: 2011-12 Ito-1

penalty of Rs.70,00,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of jewellery under his proprietor concern in the name of M/s Beauty Jewellers at Itarsi. Survey u/s 133A

AJIT LALWANI ,INDORE vs. ACIT (TDS) , INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeals in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

271 CA was barred by limitation. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and I or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before final hearing, if necessity so arises. 2. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal for both the years but the effective grounds relates

AJIT LALWANI,INDORE vs. ADD.CIT(A), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeals in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

271 CA was barred by limitation. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and I or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before final hearing, if necessity so arises. 2. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal for both the years but the effective grounds relates

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”.\n2. Since these appeals relate to same assessee/appellant and same\nassessment-years, they were heard together at the request of parties and\nare being disposed of by this common order. We first take up Quantum-\nAppeals and thereafter Penalty-Appeals.\nI.T.A. No. 495 to 500/Ind/2025 & 501/Ind/2025 – Quantum

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”].\n2.\nSince these appeals relate to same assessee/appellant and same\nassessment-years, they were heard together at the request of parties and\nare being disposed of by this common order. We first take up Quantum-\nAppeals and thereafter Penalty-Appeals.\nI.T.A. No. 495 to 500/Ind/2025 & 501/Ind/2025 – Quantum

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d). The AO\nhas imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the assessment-year for\nassessee's failure to comply with the notice issued by AO u/s 142(1).\nHaving heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the\nassessee has remained non-compliant to the notices issued

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d). The AO\nhas imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the assessment-year for\nassessee's failure to comply with the notice issued by AO u/s 142(1).\n8. Having heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the\nassessee has remained non-compliant to the notices issued

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”].\n2.\nSince these appeals relate to same assessee/appellant and same\nassessment-years, they were heard together at the request of parties and\nare being disposed of by this common order. We first take up Quantum-\nAppeals and thereafter Penalty-Appeals.\nAnuj Tiwari\nITA Nos. 495 to 501/Ind/2025

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d). The AO\nhas imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the assessment-year for\nassessee's failure to comply with the notice issued by AO u/s 142(1).\n8. Having heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the\nassessee has remained non-compliant to the notices issued

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d). The AO\nhas imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the assessment-year for\nassessee's failure to comply with the notice issued by AO u/s 142(1).\n8. Having heard learned Representatives of both sides, we find that the\nassessee has remained non-compliant to the notices issued

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

133A is treated as deemed income u/s 69B/69A of the I.T.Act, 1961 and to be taxed as per provisions of secretion 115BBE of the I.T.Act, 1961. Penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC is also initiated separately. 6. The AO has applied the provision of section 69B of the Act for want of any supporting evidence regarding source of excess stock

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]. 2. Since these appeals relate to same assessee/appellant and same assessment-years, they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this common order. We first take up Quantum- Appeals and thereafter Penalty-Appeals. Page 2 of 8 Anuj Tiwari

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]. 2. Since these appeals relate to same assessee/appellant and same assessment-years, they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this common order. We first take up Quantum- Appeals and thereafter Penalty-Appeals. Page 2 of 8 Anuj Tiwari

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]. 2. Since these appeals relate to same assessee/appellant and same assessment-years, they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this common order. We first take up Quantum- Appeals and thereafter Penalty-Appeals. Page 2 of 8 Anuj Tiwari

ANUJ TIWARI,DHAR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]. 2. Since these appeals relate to same assessee/appellant and same assessment-years, they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this common order. We first take up Quantum- Appeals and thereafter Penalty-Appeals. Page 2 of 8 Anuj Tiwari

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated for which notice shall be issued separately 5. Thus, it is clear that these were the entries found in the pocket diary as cash deposit in the name of different persons including the assessee. The assessee denied to have made any financial transactions with the society or deposit

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. I.T.O. 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated for which notice shall be issued separately 5. Thus, it is clear that these were the entries found in the pocket diary as cash deposit in the name of different persons including the assessee. The assessee denied to have made any financial transactions with the society or deposit

MAHAVIR KUMAR JAIN,UJJAIN vs. ITO 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, All appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated for which notice shall be issued separately 5. Thus, it is clear that these were the entries found in the pocket diary as cash deposit in the name of different persons including the assessee. The assessee denied to have made any financial transactions with the society or deposit