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

Appeal is allowed

139(1) or by such notice.\n\n*Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the\nIndia Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act1961. No.\ndated\nhave concealed the particulars of your Income or furnished inaccurate particulars\nof such Income

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

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

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

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

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) of Rs. 3,77,60,000/- levied by the AO on the additional income offered by the assessee in the return filed u/s 153A by invoking the deeming provision of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c). We find that after the search, the assessee prepared a cash flow statement and offered additional 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:

U/S 271 (1)( c) on the ground that there was no satisfaction in the penalty order as well, as both the charges were reiterated in the penalty order. It is also contended that the penalty order is vague and wrong as the AO has invoked Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) as referred in Para 3.1.2 of the penalty

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

139 and therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated, which fact is also identical with the present appeal. Further in the case of Kulwant Singh Bhatia penalties were levied by invoking Explanation SA to 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

139 and therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated, which fact is also identical with the present appeal. Further in the case of Kulwant Singh Bhatia penalties were levied by invoking Explanation SA to section

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

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

139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.69,56,681/- including the voluntarily disclosed income u/s 132(4) amounting to Rs.62,50,000/- assessment order was passed on 12.03.2014. A notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAA of the Act was issued on 12.03.2014 initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act. In response thereto, the assessee stated

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

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

139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.69,56,681/- including the voluntarily disclosed income u/s 132(4) amounting to Rs.62,50,000/- assessment order was passed on 12.03.2014. A notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAA of the Act was issued on 12.03.2014 initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act. In response thereto, the assessee stated

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

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

ASHRAF KHAN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2009-10 and for reference the same is reproduce below:- OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2), INDORE Aayakar Bhawan Annex, Room No. L08, Opp. White Church, Indore I.T.N.S.29 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(c) READ WITH SECTION 274 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 5 Ashraf Kahn

SHRIMATI SHASHI YADAV,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 (3), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13. For reference we reproduce below the notice u/s 274 of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13; Smt. Shashi Yadav NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(c) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PAN ABGPY9514N/2715 OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(3),IDNROE

SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee pertaining to Assessment

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Years 2007-08 Shri Akhilesh Kumar Ito-1(2), Gupta, Bhopal Plot No.162, Shop G, Ashirvad Complex, Zone-!, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aenpg0415N Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

139 ITR 0902 (MP) (iv) CIT vs. S.M. Construction (ITA No.412/2013)(Mumbai HC) (v) CIT vs. Gem Granites 86 CCH 0160(Chennai HC) (vi) CIT vs. Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Ltd. 88 CCH 0036(SC) (vii)CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory 83 CCH 0282 (Karnataka HC) (viii) National Thermal Power

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

u/s 68. The assessment and additions therein was completely based on the findings of the fact. The para 5.3 of the Ld CIT(A) order while confirming the penalty reads as under: 18." The above observations strengthen the case for levy of penalty as it has been brought in the assessment order as well as the penalty order that

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

u/s 68. The assessment and additions therein was completely based on the findings of the fact. The para 5.3 of the Ld CIT(A) order while confirming the penalty reads as under: 18." The above observations strengthen the case for levy of penalty as it has been brought in the assessment order as well as the penalty order that