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

u/s 271 (1)( c) is bad in law as it does not mentioned the specific limb of section 271 (1)( c) of the Act under which it has been initiated. When the notice does not specify the charge for levy of penalty, it has been held that the penalty cannot be levied. The Hon'ble Supreme court in Dilip

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

14. In view of our above findings wherein we have quashed the very initiation of penalty proceedings u/s Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the other grounds raised in these 9 appeals become infructuous. 15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA

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

14. In view of our above findings wherein we have quashed the very initiation of penalty proceedings u/s Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the other grounds raised in these 9 appeals become infructuous. 15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA

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

14. In view of our above findings wherein we have quashed the very initiation of penalty proceedings u/s Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the other grounds raised in these 9 appeals become infructuous. 15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA

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

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

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

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, 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

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

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.

14. In the result respective grounds\nare partly allowed as per terms indicated above.”\n2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum\nassessment proceedings.\n2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is\nconcerned the assessee for Assessment Year 2000-2001 was\nissued a show cause notice dated 19.03.2013 calling upon

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\N\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)\N\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing 19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement 07.

14. In the result respective grounds\nare partly allowed as per terms indicated above.”\n\n2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum\nassessment proceedings.\n\n2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act is\nconcerned the assessee for Assessment Year 2000-2001 was\nissued a show cause notice dated

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the entire penalty\nimposed by Ld. CIT(A) in impugned order deserves to be set aside\nby this Tribunal. Further law in this regard is fairly settled. The\nLd. AR then invited our attention to paper book page 1 to 6 which\nare 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

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\N\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Nacit-1(1),\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Nbhopal\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Assessee/Appellant)\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.

14. In the result respective grounds\nare partly allowed as per terms indicated above.”\n\n2.11 The above premises drawn up by us deals with quantum\nassessment proceedings.\n\n2.12 In so far as penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is\nconcerned the assessee for Assessment Year 2000-2001 was\nissued a show cause notice dated