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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE ITARSI, BHOPAL vs. SHRI AMIT KUMAR AGRAWAL , HOSHANGABAD

In the result, legal ground raised in Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle- Shri Amit Kumar Agrawal C/O Prop. बनाम/

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable for concealment of income for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. Tax Effect of Rs.34,00,000/- 4. We will first take the Cross objection in CO No.28/Ind/2019 filed by the assessee raising a legal issue challenging the legality of the proceedings carried out u/s 271

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. JAVA BUILDERS PVT LTD(FORMERLY JAVA FOODS PVT LTD), INDORE

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Java Builders Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax (Central)-2 (Formerly Java Foods Pvt. Ltd.), 16, Khajarana Square, बनाम/ Ghanshyam Castle, Vs. Opposite Subh Labh, Indore (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aaccj5636L Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Ms. Richa Parwal, Ar Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

271(1)(c) in the notice issued for imposing penalty u/s 271AAB. He has taken into account the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and ITAT, Indore and accordingly held that initiation of penalty without issuance of a proper notice is not valid and not sustainable. This very issue was again decided in favour

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

133A on 24.9.2011 and during the course of survey proceedings he admitted the discrepancies of unsecured loans given to various persons and offered Rs.7 crores as undisclosed unaccounted income for tax for Assessment Year 2011-12. During the course of survey revenue authorities impounded various incriminating material including hundis which were claimed by the assessee to have been issued

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

133A on 24.9.2011 and during the course of survey proceedings he admitted the discrepancies of unsecured loans given to various persons and offered Rs.7 crores as undisclosed unaccounted income for tax for Assessment Year 2011-12. During the course of survey revenue authorities impounded various incriminating material including hundis which were claimed by the assessee to have been issued

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

133A on 24.9.2011 and during the course of survey proceedings he admitted the discrepancies of unsecured loans given to various persons and offered Rs.7 crores as undisclosed unaccounted income for tax for Assessment Year 2011-12. During the course of survey revenue authorities impounded various incriminating material including hundis which were claimed by the assessee to have been issued

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), UJJAIN (STATIONED AT INDORE), UJJAIN vs. M/S. JPJ EXIM (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

survey action carried on u/s. 133A of the Act. The assessee come forwarded and declared the income which amounts to concealment of income only. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271

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

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133A conducted on 21/08/2009 were duly offered for taxation in Profit and Loss account as “Income from Hospital”.” Thus, the same was shown as income from hospital and same fact was not denied by the ld CIT(A). No other source from where the same could have been earned was pointed by the ld CIT(A). The appellant relies

M/S. PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133A conducted on 21/08/2009 were duly offered for taxation in Profit and Loss account as “Income from Hospital”.” Thus, the same was shown as income from hospital and same fact was not denied by the ld CIT(A). No other source from where the same could have been earned was pointed by the ld CIT(A). The appellant relies

M/S PATIDAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, ITA No.1007/Ind/2016 is partly allowed, is allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

133A conducted on 21/08/2009 were duly offered for taxation in Profit and Loss account as “Income from Hospital”.” Thus, the same was shown as income from hospital and same fact was not denied by the ld CIT(A). No other source from where the same could have been earned was pointed by the ld CIT(A). The appellant relies

THE ACIT (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S. ARIBA FOODS (P) LTD., INDORE

In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee offered the income for taxation only as a consequence of survey action carried out on its premises. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the aforesaid penalty levied by the Assessing officer without

M/S. ALANKAR JEWELLERS ,BETUL vs. DCIT ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2016-17

271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas no occasion to initiate penalty. 7. The appellant, carves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of gold, silver jewellery

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

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

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