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

5A to section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) has been referred in Para 3.3 of the penalty order and on other hand Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) has also been invoked in Para 3.4 stating that when there is difference between the assessed income and the returned income, there is presumption of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) has been referred in Para 3.3 of the penalty order and on other hand Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) has also been invoked in Para 3.4 stating that when there is difference between the assessed income and the returned income, there is presumption of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

SMT. PADMA KALANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

disallowances at Rs. 3,98,857/- u/s 14A of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated vide notices u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) dated 27.12.2011. It was explained by the assessee that the assessee has declared an amount

M/S. STI (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Disallowance on account of prior year expenses Rs. 3,91,610/- Total Rs. 1847021/- 11. We will first take up the legal issue through which Ld. counsel for the assessee has challenged the validity of the notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act by pleading that the Ld. Assessing Officer while issuing the impugned notice should

R.M CHEMICALS P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/AIT 4 (1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.R.M. Chemicals Acit , 4(1), Pvt.Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ 74,Jumerati, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7154D Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ca & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2023

disallowed excess deduction of Rs. 2,42,73,959/- [Rs. 2,89,62,249/- claimed by assessee (-) Rs. 46,88,290/- computed by AO]; thereby computed total income at Rs. 12,51,97,469/-. 4. Simultaneously, the AO initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c)qua the said addition vide show-cause notice dated 04.03.2016.During hearings of penalty-proceedings

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

disallowance of purchase, freight and cartage, wages and salary and salary expenses challenged before us in the ground mentioned in para 14. In the result respective grounds are partly allowed as per terms indicated above.” 2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum assessment proceedings. 2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings

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

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

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 30.03.2017, the AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,05,469/- u/s 27(1)(c)qua first

M/S J.C.SHARMA & SONS,BHOPAL vs. ACIT-5(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. J.C. Sharma & Sons Acit, 5(1), बनाम Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) /Vs. Pan: Aaefj6447L Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Singhi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

disallowed. As the assessee has concealed its income to the extent of Rs. 29,27,855/-, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for concealed the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income.” (c) Thereafter, the Ld. AR carried us to Page No. 7 of the Penalty-Order where the Ld. AO has mentioned: “7. The assessee furnished

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

5A of section 271(1)© is attracted in the assessee’s case in accordance with the Act and rightly imposed the penalty 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 2. Only effective ground is against the deletion of penalty by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Briefly stated facts are that a search action was carried out at the assessee’s business

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

5A of the Act. 9. Replying to the above the Ld.DR strongly supported to Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee himself during the search operation surrendered the amount on which the penalty have been levied and this amount not brought to the notice of the department earlier therefore, the penalty has been levied rightly which is sustainable

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

5A of the Act. 9. Replying to the above the Ld.DR strongly supported to Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee himself during the search operation surrendered the amount on which the penalty have been levied and this amount not brought to the notice of the department earlier therefore, the penalty has been levied rightly which is sustainable

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

5A of the Act. 9. Replying to the above the Ld.DR strongly supported to Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee himself during the search operation surrendered the amount on which the penalty have been levied and this amount not brought to the notice of the department earlier therefore, the penalty has been levied rightly which is sustainable

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

5A of the Act. 9. Replying to the above the Ld.DR strongly supported to Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee himself during the search operation surrendered the amount on which the penalty have been levied and this amount not brought to the notice of the department earlier therefore, the penalty has been levied rightly which is sustainable

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

5A of the Act. 9. Replying to the above the Ld.DR strongly supported to Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee himself during the search operation surrendered the amount on which the penalty have been levied and this amount not brought to the notice of the department earlier therefore, the penalty has been levied rightly which is sustainable