M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” In the light of the above judgment we are unable to affirm the action of the authorities below. As the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide notice 274 of the Act is not inconformity with the requirement of the law. Thus, the Penalty order

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

13. Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that there are numerous judicial rulings wherein the said Explanation/definition of “Undisclosed income” have been interpretated and it has been categorically held that unless there is (i) any income represented by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found

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

13. Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that there are numerous judicial rulings wherein the said Explanation/definition of “Undisclosed income” have been interpretated and it has been categorically held that unless there is (i) any income represented by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found

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

13. Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that there are numerous judicial rulings wherein the said Explanation/definition of “Undisclosed income” have been interpretated and it has been categorically held that unless there is (i) any income represented by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found

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

13. Lastly, Ld. AR submitted that there are numerous judicial rulings wherein the said Explanation/definition of “Undisclosed income” have been interpretated and it has been categorically held that unless there is (i) any income represented by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found

SHRI DIPAK KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT,OSD, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

13 was thereafter filed on 30-09-2012 wherein total income was declared at Rs. 69,56,681/- including additional income of Rs. 62,50,000/- as accepted during the course of search. A.5] The assessing officer however initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in respect of such additional Deepak and Pankaj Kalani /ITANos.700

SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

13 was thereafter filed on 30-09-2012 wherein total income was declared at Rs. 69,56,681/- including additional income of Rs. 62,50,000/- as accepted during the course of search. A.5] The assessing officer however initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in respect of such additional Deepak and Pankaj Kalani /ITANos.700

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

13. Having apprised this, Ld. AR made a vehement submission on merit of the issue. He submitted that the present issue calls for interpretation of main body of section 43(1) and Explanation 10 thereto, which reads as under: “43. In sections 28 to 41 and in this section, unless the context otherwise requires— (1) "actual cost" means the actual

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Section 149(1)(a) of the 1961 Act. [See Keenara Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Surat 2023 (3) TMI 104 (Gujarat High Court); Rajiv Bansal v. Union of India and Ors 2023 (2) TMI 1081 (Bombay High Court) and Mon Mohan Kohli (Delhi High Court) paras 86 to 89] 13 Smt. Nilima Kothari (c) The Instruction dated 11.05.2022 issued

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

reassessment was passed on the same day and the assessee then paid the tax due as well as the interest thereon. 10. Unfortunately for the assessee, the Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. After obtaining a response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer saddled the assessee with penalty