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

3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section which means that before imposing the penalty under sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the levy of penalty

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

3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section which means that before imposing the penalty under sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the levy of penalty

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

3,58,72,460/ - was on account of peak credit to explain the source of share application money introduced in books of accounts. 17.3 In respect of above additional income offered u/s 132(4) and also in the return filed u/s 153A r.w.s. 139, the respondent wish to submit as under:- Basic facts of the case resulting into offering

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

3,58,72,460/ - was on account of peak credit to explain the source of share application money introduced in books of accounts. 17.3 In respect of above additional income offered u/s 132(4) and also in the return filed u/s 153A r.w.s. 139, the respondent wish to submit as under:- Basic facts of the case resulting into offering

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income

SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

SHRI DIPAK KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT,OSD, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

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

THE ACIT -4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI MUKESH SANGLA, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2010-11 Acit-4(1), Shri Mukesh Sangla, Indore बनाम/ Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Anaps5579F

3)/254 dated 30.6.2017. 9. Further, we also find that the penalty notice issued u/s 274 is also vague as both the charges i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are mentioned therein. As per provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there are two different charges i.e. the concealment of particulars

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

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

u/s 292BB of the Act. Therefore, we hereby quash the penalty order.” [Emphasis Supplied] 1.4.4] The Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri R. Elangovan [ITA No. 1199/CHNY/2017] has categorically held that: “5…………..It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by deleting the penalty u/s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the undisclosed income unearthed as a result of search only. Had the search not taken place, the undisclosed income would have escaped

DR. BRAJBALA TIWARI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, INDORE

In the result the legal ground of the assessee in for years

Bench: Hon'Ble’Ble Shri Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble’Ble Shri Manish Borad

section 271 (1 )(c) thereon. (2) 0n the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) III erred in heavily relying on the seized document BS-16 though not pertaining to relevant assessment year while confirming penalty levied U/S 271 (1) (c) in view of the fact that [earned A.O. did not consider BS - 16 in penalty

DR. BRAJBALA TIWARI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, INDORE

In the result the legal ground of the assessee in for years

Bench: Hon'Ble’Ble Shri Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble’Ble Shri Manish Borad

section 271 (1 )(c) thereon. (2) 0n the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) III erred in heavily relying on the seized document BS-16 though not pertaining to relevant assessment year while confirming penalty levied U/S 271 (1) (c) in view of the fact that [earned A.O. did not consider BS - 16 in penalty