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 271(1)(c) and 271(AA) of the Act of 1961. The learned Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the appeal and setting aside the well reasoned order of penalty. She also submits that the ITAT erred in not considered the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. She during the course of the arguments very specifically admitted that

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 271(1)(c) and 271(AA) of the Act of 1961. The learned Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the appeal and setting aside the well reasoned order of penalty. She also submits that the ITAT erred in not considered the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. She during the course of the arguments very specifically admitted that

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 271(1)(c) and 271(AA) of the Act of 1961. The learned Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the appeal and setting aside the well reasoned order of penalty. She also submits that the ITAT erred in not considered the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. She during the course of the arguments very specifically admitted that

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) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. (iii) Section 271AAB deals specifically

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) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. (iii) Section 271AAB deals specifically

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) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. (iii) Section 271AAB deals specifically

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) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. (iii) Section 271AAB deals specifically

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

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

11. The only case of the assessee is that if the period of limitation prescribed in Section 271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty

PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,MHOW vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provisions of section 271AAB. Therefore, certainly such notice has a fatal error and technically' is not a correct notice in the eyes

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:

11 (SC) it is now a settled proposition that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotation. It is equally settled proposition that where the charge for levying penalty is not specific, the notice U/S 271 (1)( c) is bad in law as it does not mentioned the specific limb of section

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

section 271(1)(c), the pre-requisite condition for initiation of penalty is that there should concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, both the conditions are absent in this case, since whatever income was declared was accepted and assessee declared full details of short term capital gains in shares with each script, period of holding

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

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL-1, INDORE

penalty u/s. Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed\nautomatically.\n8. That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of\nthe foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary.”\nLd. Ld. AR for assessee opened his arguments by drawing our\nattention to the show-cause notices dated 29.12.2017 issued by AO u/s Section 274\nread

DCIT-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) which\nreads as under:\n“271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of\nincome, etc.\n(1) If the Assessing Officer\nin the course of any proceedings\nunder this Act, is satisfied that any person\nXX\n(c)\nhas concealed the particulars of his income or furnished\ninaccurate particulars of such income

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

11. The only case of the assessee is that if the period of limitation prescribed in Section 271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

11. The only case of the assessee is that if the period of limitation prescribed in Section 271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty