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

10 Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 The assessment proceedings: 17.3.3 It is submitted that the Learned AO in the assessment order rejected the peak theory and consequentially also rejected the cash flow statement as discussed in Para 12.8.1 of the assessment order and proceeded to add the entire share capital raised

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

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

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, 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

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

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

38. The Ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009 in support of the contention that the notices u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009, 24.12.2010, 26.12.2011 and also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner

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

38. The Ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009 in support of the contention that the notices u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009, 24.12.2010, 26.12.2011 and also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner

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

38. The Ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009 in support of the contention that the notices u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009, 24.12.2010, 26.12.2011 and also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner

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

38. The Ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009 in support of the contention that the notices u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009, 24.12.2010, 26.12.2011 and also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner

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

38. The Ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009 in support of the contention that the notices u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009, 24.12.2010, 26.12.2011 and also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner

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

38. The Ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009 in support of the contention that the notices u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009, 24.12.2010, 26.12.2011 and also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner

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

38. The Ld. Counsel also drew our attention to the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009 in support of the contention that the notices u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.12.2009, 24.12.2010, 26.12.2011 and also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner