SHRI VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessing Officer found a sum of Rs. 2,01,000 in books of account of assessee - Assessing Officer issued notice to assessee asking him to explain source of said amount - Assessee replied that he borrowed same from different creditors _ However, despite best efforts, assessee could not secure creditors

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

68,47,260/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has shown loss of Rs. 21,02,353/- on purchase and sale of shares effected through M/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. An information received from Addl. DIT (Inv) Mumbai, in the case of M/s. Swift Intermedia Convergence Ltd.; that the said company M/s. Mahasagar Securities

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

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

68,34,975/- as accepted in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 did not fall within the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ as provided in Explanation to section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961; hence, there arises no question of levy of penalty of Rs. 6,83,498/- under section

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ITO, VIDISHA, VIDISHA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2019-20 Subhash Chandra Ito, Agrawal, Vidisha बनाम/ Galla Mandi, Vs. Vidisha (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afrpa8769A Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri Jaideep Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2026

13,460/- inclusive of taxable capital gain of Rs. 27,85,291/- from sale of an immovable property. The AO processed assessee’s return u/s 143(1) after assessing total income at Rs. 70,93,460/- inclusive of taxable capital gain of Rs. 61,65,291/-. In effect, the AO made an addition/upward adjustment

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

13. The A.O. made addition by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the view of the assessing officer. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act is not justified. 15. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. opposed the submissions and supported the orders

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

13. The A.O. made addition by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the view of the assessing officer. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act is not justified. 15. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. opposed the submissions and supported the orders

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

13. The A.O. made addition by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the view of the assessing officer. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act is not justified. 15. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. opposed the submissions and supported the orders

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

13. The A.O. made addition by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the view of the assessing officer. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act is not justified. 15. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. opposed the submissions and supported the orders

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

13. The A.O. made addition by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the view of the assessing officer. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act is not justified. 15. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. opposed the submissions and supported the orders

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

13. The A.O. made addition by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the view of the assessing officer. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act is not justified. 15. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. opposed the submissions and supported the orders

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

13. The A.O. made addition by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the view of the assessing officer. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act is not justified. 15. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. opposed the submissions and supported the orders

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

68 of the Act at Rs.24,46,824/-. The AO also made an addition for unexplained expenditure u/s 69C at Rs. 1,22,341/-. Income assessed at Rs.30,11,605/-. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising various legal issues and grounds on merit but failed to succeed. 3.2 Now the assesse is in appeal before

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

68, section 69, section 69A,\nsection\n69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of\npenalty, in addition to tax payable under section 115BBE, a sum computed at the rate of ten\nper cent of the tax payable under clause (i) of sub-section (1

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SMT. SAROJ THAKUR, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14

68 of the Act. However since the loans were taken in cash penalty u/s 271D of the Act was initiated and subsequently levied for the contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. 12. The penalty u/s 271D of the Act is attracted if the assessee fails to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (TDS), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 194J of the Act is not attracted in the case of "revenue sharing contract". According to Respondent No.1, in such contracts there is only sharing of revenue and, therefore, payments by revenue sharing cannot constitute "fees" under Section 194J of the Act. This submission is not accepted by the Department. We leave it there because this submission

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

c) of sub-rule (1), the fair market value of unquoted equity shares for the purposes of sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Explanation to clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56 shall be the value, on the valuation date, of such unquoted equity shares as determined in the following manner under clause