NEMICHAND JAIN HUF,BERASIA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2019-20 Nemichand Jain Huf Pcit (Central), Prop. M/S. Mahavir Bhopal बनाम/ Jewellers. Near Bus Stand Vs. Berasia (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aachn1847E Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been

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

section 274 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show-cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard. A mistake

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

section 274 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show-cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard. A mistake

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

section 274 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show-cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard. A mistake

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

section 274 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show-cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard. A mistake

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

section 274 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show-cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard. A mistake

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

section 274 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show-cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard. A mistake

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

section 274 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show-cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard. A mistake

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act have also been issued in cyclostyled proforma mentioning both the limbs of Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without striking off the inapplicable clause. In support of settled proposition that both the limbs carried different connotations, reliance

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act have also been issued in cyclostyled proforma mentioning both the limbs of Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without striking off the inapplicable clause. In support of settled proposition that both the limbs carried different connotations, reliance

DHANRAJ DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT (1), INDORE

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

68; (iii) disallowance of Rs. 28,000/- out of telephone, vehicle maintenance and depreciation; and (iv) disallowance of Rs. 20,000/- out of office, conveyance and travelling expenses. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal wherein the CIT(A) granted part relief by deleting the addition of last item of Rs. 20,000/-. Subsequently, vide penalty-order dated

THE ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI AMIT TIWARI, INDORE

In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahaveer Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

68,34,975/-) and Rs. 73,16,503/- (10% of Rs. 7,31,65,025/-) for assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. Against the penalty-order for assessment-year 2015-16, the matter travelled upto this ITAT, Indore Bench in appeal ITA No. 699/Ind/2019 and that appeal had already been decided vide order dated 19.08.2020 against the revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of an Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060659730(1) dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred

THE DCIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, BHOPAL vs. M/S. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

274 ITR 785 (SC). Thus, a business whose income is utilized by the trust or the institution for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the trust or the institution is surely, a business which is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust. It is relevant to note that the provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. MAYANK WELFARE SOCIETY, INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

274 ITR 785 (SC). Thus, a business whose income is utilized by the trust or the institution for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the trust or the institution is surely, a business which is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust. It is relevant to note that the provisions of section

BALKISHAN KOSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 68- 69 of the Act hence, assessment and penalty appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. Page 2 of 8 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Indore vs. NFAC, Delhi ITA Nos.69 & 72/Ind/2024 – A.Ys. 2013-14 3. These appeals are inter-related; therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this

BALKISHAN KOUSHAL ,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Ay: 2013-14 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 31, Bhagirathpura, Nfac, Vs. Indore. Delhi (Pan: Bkipk5435L) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

section 68- 69 of the Act hence, assessment and penalty appeal-order is prejudice, unjustified and deserve to be set-aside according to law. Page 2 of 8 Shri Balkishan Koshal, Indore vs. NFAC, Delhi ITA Nos.69 & 72/Ind/2024 – A.Ys. 2013-14 3. These appeals are inter-related; therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

274 r.w.s.270A of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.11.2021 was served to the\nassessee. Assessee has furnished his submission through E-\nresponse on 01.01.2022 wherein, he has requested for immunity\nfrom penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. However assessee\nhas not furnished duly filled Form No. 68 required as per Rule\n129 in accordance with the provisions