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

5,08,55,709/ _ offered u / s 132(4). The breakup of the additional income is as under: (i) Rs.28,90,450 / _ was offered on the basis of notings made on various loose paper seized at the time of search which could not be identified in books of accounts. (ii) Rs. 3,58,72,460/- was offered on account

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and not under the purview of section 271AAA 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. 6,25,000/- as levied under section 271AAA

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and not under the purview of section 271AAA 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. 6,25,000/- as levied under section 271AAA

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

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(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity and the resulting situation

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(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity and the resulting situation

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(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity and the resulting situation

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(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity and the resulting situation

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

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