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

10. It is submitted that the provision of Section 271(1)(c) together with Explanation 5(A) brings the assessee liable for imposition of penalty in Page 26 of 29 Prem Chawla & other ITA Nos. 673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024– AY 2000-2001to 2006-07 respect of additional income, which has been offered following the search and the Assessing Officer

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

10. It is submitted that the provision of Section 271(1)(c) together with Explanation 5(A) brings the assessee liable for imposition of penalty in Page 26 of 29 Prem Chawla & other ITA Nos. 673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024– AY 2000-2001to 2006-07 respect of additional income, which has been offered following the search and the Assessing Officer

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

10. It is submitted that the provision of Section 271(1)(c) together with Explanation 5(A) brings the assessee liable for imposition of penalty in Page 26 of 29 Prem Chawla & other ITA Nos. 673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024– AY 2000-2001to 2006-07 respect of additional income, which has been offered following the search and the Assessing Officer

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

10. It is submitted that the provision of Section 271(1)(c) together with Explanation 5(A) brings the assessee liable for imposition of penalty in Page 26 of 29 Prem Chawla & other ITA Nos. 673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024– AY 2000-2001to 2006-07 respect of additional income, which has been offered following the search and the Assessing Officer

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

10 of 29\nPrem Chawla & other\nITA Nos.673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024- AY 2000-2001to 2006-07\norder did not accept the contention of the assessee because the\nassessee himself has accepted that payment of Rs.4,29,875/-\nhas been made out of the books and hence addition of\nRs.4,29,875/- was made. A satisfaction that penalty\nproceedings u/s

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

10 of 29\nPrem Chawla & other\nITA Nos.673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024-AY 2000-2001to 2006-07\norder did not accept the contention of the assessee because the\nassessee himself has accepted that payment of Rs.4,29,875/-\nhas been made out of the books and hence addition of\nRs.4,29,875/- was made. A satisfaction that penalty\nproceedings u/s 271

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and not under the purview of section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The show cause notice thus suffers from a fatal error which is not curable under section 292BB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and henceforth, penalty of Rs. 6,83,498/- as levied under section 271AAB

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

10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. was not justified in making addition under the provisions of section 14A of the Act. He submitted that

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

10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. was not justified in making addition under the provisions of section 14A of the Act. He submitted that

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

10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. was not justified in making addition under the provisions of section 14A of the Act. He submitted that

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

10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. was not justified in making addition under the provisions of section 14A of the Act. He submitted that

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

10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. was not justified in making addition under the provisions of section 14A of the Act. He submitted that

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

10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. was not justified in making addition under the provisions of section 14A of the Act. He submitted that

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

10. Taking into consideration the assessment year 2007-08, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition. This ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7 11. For Ground No.2, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. was not justified in making addition under the provisions of section 14A of the Act. He submitted that