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

132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary

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

132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary

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

132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary

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

132(4) was also offered in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A and due taxes were also paid before filing the return of income. The appellant has challenged the initiation of the penalty proceedings on the contention that no satisfaction was drawn in the assessment order while initiating the penalty proceedings as no charge was mentioned

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

132(4) was also offered in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A and due taxes were also paid before filing the return of income. The appellant has challenged the initiation of the penalty proceedings on the contention that no satisfaction was drawn in the assessment order while initiating the penalty proceedings as no charge was mentioned

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

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

132 of the Act, penalties were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The common legal ground taken by all these assessees is with regard to challenging the Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. legality and validity of the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is admitted by both the parties that similar notices

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

132 of the Act, penalties were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The common legal ground taken by all these assessees is with regard to challenging the Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. legality and validity of the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is admitted by both the parties that similar notices

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

132 of the Act, penalties were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The common legal ground taken by all these assessees is with regard to challenging the Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. legality and validity of the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is admitted by both the parties that similar notices

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

132 (4) as well as returns filed under Section 153A. These incomes have been accepted in the assessment order without any variation and objection. The blanket penalty proceedings were initiated in all cases under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were issued in the typed format without striking off either

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

132 (4) as well as returns filed under Section 153A. These incomes have been accepted in the assessment order without any variation and objection. The blanket penalty proceedings were initiated in all cases under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were issued in the typed format without striking off either

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

132 (4) as well as returns filed under Section 153A. These incomes have been accepted in the assessment order without any variation and objection. The blanket penalty proceedings were initiated in all cases under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were issued in the typed format without striking off either

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

132 (4) as well as returns filed under Section 153A. These incomes have been accepted in the assessment order without any variation and objection. The blanket penalty proceedings were initiated in all cases under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were issued in the typed format without striking off either

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

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

132 (4) as well as returns filed\nunder Section 153A. These incomes have been accepted in the\nassessment order without any variation and objection. The blanket\npenalty proceedings were initiated in all cases under Section 271(1)(c).\nThe penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section\n271(1)(c) were issued in the typed format without striking off either

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

132 (4) as well as returns filed\nunder Section 153A. These incomes have been accepted in the\nassessment order without any variation and objection. The blanket\npenalty proceedings were initiated in all cases under Section 271(1)(c).\nThe penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section\n271(1)(c) were issued in the typed format without striking off either

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

132 (4) as well as returns filed\nunder Section 153A. These incomes have been accepted in the\nassessment order without any variation and objection. The blanket\npenalty proceedings were initiated in all cases under Section 271(1)(c).\nThe penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section\n271(1)(c) were issued in the typed format without striking off either