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

132 of the Act, penalties were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The common legal ground taken by all these assessees is with regard to challenging the Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. legality and validity of the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is admitted by both the parties that similar notices

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

132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary

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

132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary

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

132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary

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

132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary

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

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

132(4) of the Act and tax due on the additional income was also paid by the appellant. 2] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in maintaining the levy of penalty under section 271AAA Deepak and Pankaj Kalani /ITANos.700 & 701/Ind/2019 of the Act even when the show

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

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

132(4) of the Act and tax due on the additional income was also paid by the appellant. 2] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in maintaining the levy of penalty under section 271AAA Deepak and Pankaj Kalani /ITANos.700 & 701/Ind/2019 of the Act even when the show

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

reassess the same. Section 153A of the Act reads as under: IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma "153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 139, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132

SMT. MEHA JAIN,JALGAON vs. DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Meha Jain Dcit(Central) 40, Jay Nagar, Jilha Peth Bhopal Vs. Jalgaon Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aeipj 3170 N Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023

132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate. As per sub-section (2) of Section 153A, if any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1

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

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

132(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 which was duly offered for tax in his income-tax return and legitimate amount of tax due was also paid on such additional income. The appellant subsequently also filed an affidavit dated 30-11-2015 during the course of post search proceedings wherein the break-up of additional income

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

132(4) of the Act of any director of Messers Goenka Business and Finance Ltd., if any, recorded by Investigation Wing and report of Investigation Wing, Mumbai, were ever made available to the appellant to verify the conclusion drawn by the department as Penny Stock. There being no evidence about the cash transfer, either at the time of purchase

THE DCIT CENTRAL-(1), INDORE vs. M/S AYUSH AJAY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanii.T(Ss).A. Nos.14 To 16/Ind/2018 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10)

132(1) employ the words “books of account or other documents”. For harmonious interpretation of this provision with provision contained in section 153A, all the three conditions on satisfaction of which a warrant of search can be issued will have to be taken into account. 51. Having held so, an assessment or reassessment

SAMEER MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. ITO-3(3) , INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment order 1 [ITA No.224/Ind/2019] [Sameer Maheshwari ] which is invalid, barred by limitation, illegal bad in law, void ab initio and therefore liable to be quashed. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.17,28,000/- to the total income of the appellant, treating the same as unexplained investment. 2. At the outset of hearing, Ld. counsel

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

THE DCIT, 2(1), INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

JCIT(OSD),-2(1),INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment of the firm under section 143(3) read with section 148 wherein the impugned share of profit was offered to tax was completed and accepted by the Revenue. There is no material with the AO to demonstrate that firm was not genuine, and its activities were doubtful nature, and that the impugned amount of Rs.25,76,208/- represented unexplained

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

132 of the Act was carried out and substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father Yogiraj Sharma. On the protective addition so made in the hands of the assessee. Penalty proceedings were initiated. The assessee could not get relief up to the first appellate authority. Before us, the assessee has raised the legal ground

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

132 of the Act was carried out and substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father Yogiraj Sharma. On the protective addition so made in the hands of the assessee. Penalty proceedings were initiated. The assessee could not get relief up to the first appellate authority. Before us, the assessee has raised the legal ground