MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

68 required as per Rule 129 in accordance of the provisions of section 270AA of the Act for immunity from penalty proceedings u/s 270A, hence order u/s 270AA(4) cannot be passed in the case of the assessee and immunity from imposition of penalty cannot be granted to the assessee. The case laws quoted by the assessee have been

RAM BABU SINGH,BIHAR vs. THE ITO-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ram Babu Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Near Gayatri Mandir, 2(1), बनाम/ Saharsa, Bhopal Vs. Bihar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cufps2957D Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

2 of 13 Shri Ram Babu Singh, Bihar ITA No. 17/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 withdrawals from bank immediately preceding the cash deposits. Alongwith that the assessee has throughout his statement never explained the actual source of the deposits. 7. The reason stated by the assessee for cash deposit of Rs. 20,50,000/- during demonetization period is neither acceptable

ACIT-1(1), INDORE vs. KRITI NUTRIENTS LIMITED, INDORE

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

270A of the Act for misreporting the\nparticulars of income and u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, are\nseparately initiated on the issue. (Addition of\nRs.7,2260,000/-)”\nThe Ld. DR has emphasized that no details, no material were\nfurnished by the assessee company that Ld. AO has correctly\npassed the “Impugned Assessment Order”.\nKriti Nutrients Ltd.\nITA No. 780/Ind/2024

MALWA OXYGEN AND INDUSTRIAL GASES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECTOR C, INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. AO-RATLAM/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, RATLAM/DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

270A(9)(a) are initiated separately.\n[Disallowance of Rs.78,72,495/-]\n6. During first appeal, the CIT(A) upheld AO's action by passing following\norder:\n“6.1 From the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant failed to produce\nsupporting evidences for claim of expenditure incurred towards scientific\nresearch before the Secretary DSIR, Government of India