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:

penalty proceedings following show cause notice was issued u/s 274 r.w.rt. 271(1)(c) of the Act : M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 OFFICER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE PAN:AADCK9401E TO, M/s. Kalyan Toll Highways Pvt. Ltd., 15/3, Vidhyadeep, Manoramaganj Indore Sir, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271

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

penalty- order the AO has himself stated “whereas the assessee is not carrying any business except letting out the properties”. Thus, there is no doubt or dispute regarding engagement of assessee in the business of letting of properties. (ii) The case of assessee for immediate preceding AY 2015-16 was also subjected to scrutiny assessment wherein questionnaire u/s 142

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL-1, INDORE

penalty u/s. Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed\nautomatically.\n8. That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of\nthe foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary.”\nLd. Ld. AR for assessee opened his arguments by drawing our\nattention to the show-cause notices dated 29.12.2017 issued by AO u/s Section 274\nread

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

271(a)(b)(c)(d).\nUnder section 271AAC(1) an obligation is casted where\nincome determined includes any income referred to in\nsection 68,69,69A,69B, 69C, 69D to pay penalty is addition\nto tax payable u/s 115BBE. While the actual proceeding\nu/s 271AAC(1) later on may be separate & independent but\nwhile determining such income

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the same is\nscanned and re-produced here:\nRiyaz Qureshi\nITA Nos.663 to 665/Ind/2024\nA.Ys.2013-14 to 2015-16\nNOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME\nTAX ACT, 1961\nPAN NO. AADPQ0375P\nTo,\nShri Riyaz Qureshi\n12. MOLANA AZAD MARG, JHABUA\nOffice of the\nIncome Tax Officer

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the same is\nscanned and re-produced here:\nRiyaz Qureshi\nITA Nos.663 to 665/Ind/2024\nA.Ys.2013-14 to 2015-16\nNOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME\nTAX ACT, 1961\nPAN NO. AADPQ0375P\nTo,\nShri Riyaz Qureshi\n12. MOLANA AZAD MARG, JHABUA\nOffice of the\nIncome Tax Officer

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

142 (Mag.) 7.1 Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that even otherwise when the repayment was through RTGS the same is through banking channel and cannot be held as a violation of section 269T of the Act. He has pointed out that this mode of payment was included subsequently vide amendment however, it is only a technical and venial breach

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

142 (Mag.) 7.1 Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that even otherwise when the repayment was through RTGS the same is through banking channel and cannot be held as a violation of section 269T of the Act. He has pointed out that this mode of payment was included subsequently vide amendment however, it is only a technical and venial breach

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

142 (Mag.) 7.1 Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that even otherwise when the repayment was through RTGS the same is through banking channel and cannot be held as a violation of section 269T of the Act. He has pointed out that this mode of payment was included subsequently vide amendment however, it is only a technical and venial breach

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the same is\nscanned and re-produced here:\nPage 2 of 14\nRiyaz Qureshi\nITA Nos. 663 to 665/Ind/2024\nA.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16\nNOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME\nTAX ACT, 1961\nPAN NO. AADPQ0375P\nTo,\nShri Riyaz Qureshi\n12. MOLANA AZAD MARG, JHABUA\nOffice

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

271 C of the Act for default of non-Deduction of TDS on the amount allowed to the distributors/dealers being commission. Therefore the AO was of the view that assessee has committed a default in compliance of provision of section194H of the Act and consequently liable to be charged with penalty u/s 271C of the Act. Ld. AO has finally

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE CIT- (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

271 C of the Act for default of non-Deduction of TDS on the amount allowed to the distributors/dealers being commission. Therefore the AO was of the view that assessee has committed a default in compliance of provision of section194H of the Act and consequently liable to be charged with penalty u/s 271C of the Act. Ld. AO has finally

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

271 C of the Act for default of non-Deduction of TDS on the amount allowed to the distributors/dealers being commission. Therefore the AO was of the view that assessee has committed a default in compliance of provision of section194H of the Act and consequently liable to be charged with penalty u/s 271C of the Act. Ld. AO has finally

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

271 C of the Act for default of non-Deduction of TDS on the amount allowed to the distributors/dealers being commission. Therefore the AO was of the view that assessee has committed a default in compliance of provision of section194H of the Act and consequently liable to be charged with penalty u/s 271C of the Act. Ld. AO has finally

SWAN PETRCHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 271(1)(c) whereas at the most it is a case of furnishing incorrect particulars of income and not concealment of particulars of income. Therefore the Explanation-1 is not applicable in the case of the assessee. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions: 4 M/s. Swan Petrochemicals Pvt.Ltd (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court

SMT. KAVITA SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO-3(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, 112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Arcps6793D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

Section 271(1)(c) and, hence, when the AO has determined the total tax on the income assessed at Rs. 2,08,142/- whereas the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee before the notice u/s 148 was issued is Rs.2,16,470/-, then balance would be nil and ,consequently, there would be nil amount of tax sought

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANUPUR vs. JOINT COMMISIIONER OF INCOME TAX -OSD, CENTRAL-1, INDORE , INDORE

u/s 271(1)(c) and imposed penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, which were upheld by the CIT(A).", "held": "The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued by the AO for penalty proceedings was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on various

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani&

271 C of the Act for default of non-Deduction of TDS on the amount allowed to the distributors/dealers being commission. Therefore the AO was of the view that assessee has committed a default in compliance of provision of section194H of the Act and consequently liable to be charged with penalty u/s 271C of the Act. Ld. AO has finally