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, 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

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 271

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 271

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

3 of the assessment order, the assessing order, AO observed as under:- “As the assessee has concealed/furnished the inaccurate particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is also initiated.” 3.3. As per section 271 (1)(c), the assessing officer is empowered to impose penalty if in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that

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

3 of the assessment order, the assessing order, AO observed as under:- “As the assessee has concealed/furnished the inaccurate particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is also initiated.” 3.3. As per section 271 (1)(c), the assessing officer is empowered to impose penalty if in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that

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

3 of the assessment order, the assessing order, AO observed as under:- “As the assessee has concealed/furnished the inaccurate particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is also initiated.” 3.3. As per section 271 (1)(c), the assessing officer is empowered to impose penalty if in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied 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

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

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

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

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

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

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

3,77,54,812/- made on account of levying of 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

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

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

u/s 271AAB. In response, the assessee merely submitted that he has filed an appeal against 2 Gaurav Ajmera ITA No. 808/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 the assessment-order and requested to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till decision of first-appeal. The assessee, however, did not make any effective or further participation. Ultimately, the AO passed penalty-order dated

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

u/s 292BB of the Act. Therefore, we hereby quash the penalty order.” [Emphasis Supplied] 1.4.4] The Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri R. Elangovan [ITA No. 1199/CHNY/2017] has categorically held that: “5…………..It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall

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

3) of the Act with which he was burdened for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c ) of the Act. We have also observed that in the order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the AD u/s 271 (l)(f;) of the Act levying penalty on the assessee, the A 0 after considering the explanation of the assessee has clearly recorded

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

3) of the Act with which he was burdened for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c ) of the Act. We have also observed that in the order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the AD u/s 271 (l)(f;) of the Act levying penalty on the assessee, the A 0 after considering the explanation of the assessee has clearly recorded