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

section 27 I (1)( c ). Yours faithfully, \. ------ (Ram kumar Yadava) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Indore “ Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 9. From the perusal of the above notice we find that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings mentioning both the reasons “have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income

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

section 27 I (1)( c ). Yours faithfully, \. ------ (Ram kumar Yadava) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Indore “ Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 9. From the perusal of the above notice we find that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings mentioning both the reasons “have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of 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

section 27 I (1)( c ). Yours faithfully, \. ------ (Ram kumar Yadava) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Indore “ Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 9. From the perusal of the above notice we find that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings mentioning both the reasons “have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income

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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, it does not contain the ingredients of section 271AAB of the Act. Under these facts the notice is improper and is not in accordance with requirement of law. The assessing officer is expected to make his direction clear as to which clause of section 271AAB of the Act, he wishes to invoke. There

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

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 & 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 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 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

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

34,47,11,770/-, making additions of Rs. 22,08,80,720/-. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the additions made in the assessment order. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Learned CIT(A) allowed partial relief. The first appellate order was challenged by the assessee as well

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

34,05,436/- i.e. 100% tax evaded.” In the light of the above, we need to examine whether assessment order and the penalty order comply with the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that on page 3 of the assessment order, the assessing order, AO observed as under:- “As the assessee has concealed/furnished the inaccurate