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

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

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

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

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

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

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

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 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

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

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as the 'Act' for sake of brevity). The assessee is\naggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3\nBhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s\n250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned\norder\". The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the\ncorresponding

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as the 'Act' for sake of brevity). The assessee is\naggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3\nBhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s\n250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned\norder\". The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the\ncorresponding

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

10. We further note that Ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the fact on merits held that penalty is not leviable as no addition was made and on legal ground assessee’s case is covered by the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Kulwant Singh Bhatia (supra) deleted the impugned penalty observing as follows

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

271(a)(b)(c)(d).\nUnder section 271AAC(1) an obligation is casted where\nincome determined includes any income referred to in\nsection 68,69,69A,69B, 69C, 69D to pay penalty is addition\nto tax payable u/s 115BBE. While the actual proceeding\nu/s 271AAC(1) later on may be separate & independent but\nwhile determining such income

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings\nhad been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of\nthe assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka\nHigh Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings\nhad been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of\nthe assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka\nHigh Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings\nhad been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of\nthe assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka\nHigh Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

271 (Kol-Trib) dt.6-12-17, where in Para 10 it was held as under: Page 38 of 42 M/s Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highways (India) Ltd. ITA Nos. 793 to 799/Ind/2019 & ITA Nos. 800 to 805/Ind/2019 - AY 2009-10 to 2015-16 “10. We find that it is not in dispute that there were no documents that were seized from the premises

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

271 (Kol-Trib) dt.6-12-17, where in Para 10 it was held as under: Page 38 of 42 M/s Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highways (India) Ltd. ITA Nos. 793 to 799/Ind/2019 & ITA Nos. 800 to 805/Ind/2019 - AY 2009-10 to 2015-16 “10. We find that it is not in dispute that there were no documents that were seized from the premises

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

271 (Kol-Trib) dt.6-12-17, where in Para 10 it was held as under: Page 38 of 42 M/s Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highways (India) Ltd. ITA Nos. 793 to 799/Ind/2019 & ITA Nos. 800 to 805/Ind/2019 - AY 2009-10 to 2015-16 “10. We find that it is not in dispute that there were no documents that were seized from the premises

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

271 (Kol-Trib) dt.6-12-17, where in Para 10 it was held as under: Page 38 of 42 M/s Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highways (India) Ltd. ITA Nos. 793 to 799/Ind/2019 & ITA Nos. 800 to 805/Ind/2019 - AY 2009-10 to 2015-16 “10. We find that it is not in dispute that there were no documents that were seized from the premises