GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

271(1)(c) whereas the notice\nhas been issued u/s 271AAB. In nutshell, Ld. AR argued that the AO has\nspecified a wrong charge in the notice issued to assessee and thereby\ncommitted a grave illegality in initiating penalty-proceeding. Therefore, Ld. AR\ncontended, the penalty proceeding initiated by AO is liable to be stuck down.\nTo support his contention

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , the entire penalty imposed by Ld. CIT(A) in impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Tribunal. Further law in this regard is fairly settled. The Ld. AR then invited our attention to paper book page 1 to 6 which are copies of notice(s) all dated 19.03.2013 and follow

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , the entire penalty imposed by Ld. CIT(A) in impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Tribunal. Further law in this regard is fairly settled. The Ld. AR then invited our attention to paper book page 1 to 6 which are copies of notice(s) all dated 19.03.2013 and follow

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , the entire penalty imposed by Ld. CIT(A) in impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Tribunal. Further law in this regard is fairly settled. The Ld. AR then invited our attention to paper book page 1 to 6 which are copies of notice(s) all dated 19.03.2013 and follow

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , the entire penalty imposed by Ld. CIT(A) in impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Tribunal. Further law in this regard is fairly settled. The Ld. AR then invited our attention to paper book page 1 to 6 which are copies of notice(s) all dated 19.03.2013 and follow

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

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 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 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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), Shri Mukesh Sangla., Indore whereas the AO strongly established that the case of the assessee clearly comes under the provisions of section 271(1)(c). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not considering that the assessee himself in reply to specific query on difference has admitted that he offered miscellaneous income

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. From going through the above notice issued to the assessee, we find that there is no mention about various conditions provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act. In the notice dated 22.03.2016 the Ld. A.O has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment

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

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

11. From going through the above notice issued to the assessee, we find that there is no mention about various conditions provided u/s 271 AAB of the Act. In the notice dated 22.03.2016 the Ld. A.O has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment