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 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

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 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

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 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

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 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

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

271(1)(c) stating that such disallowances have been made merely on the ground of difference in opinion in between the assessee and the revenue, wherein assessee being engaged in the main business activity of renting of immovable property offered the income under the head business and profession but the Ld. AO was of the view that such income should

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

143(3), dated 28.03.2014 survived. Later on, the AO initiated fresh penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing formal notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) along with the order passed u/s

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:

143(3) r.w.s. 153A were completed on 29.11.2017 for the year under appeal. Ld. AO observed that assessee has booked bogus purchase of bitumen of Rs.1,83,38,032/-. This amount was not claimed as an expenditure but was part of the project cost shown as work-in-progress. Depreciation on this project cost was claimed from

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A on 26.03.2014 at a total income of Rs.41,97,07,950/- by making various additions and disallowances. The additions made by the Ld. A.O were partly deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and remaining were deleted by the Tribunal except for the addition of Rs.2,28,103/- sustained on account of additional claim of depreciation. 6. Subsequently

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A on 26.03.2014 at a total income of Rs.41,97,07,950/- by making various additions and disallowances. The additions made by the Ld. A.O were partly deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and remaining were deleted by the Tribunal except for the addition of Rs.2,28,103/- sustained on account of additional claim of depreciation. 6. Subsequently

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

section 271(1)(c ) would not mentioned the specific requirement of law. Assessee should know the grounds on which he has charged specific otherwise opportunities of natural justice denied. On the basis of such proceedings no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Taking up the penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assesssee in another limb

M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result appeal (ITA No

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2006-07 M/S. Kalani Industries Pvt. Dcit 1(1), Ltd, Vs. Indore 11 Tukoganj Main Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Aaack7074P Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit & Shri R.S. Ambedkar, Sr. Dr Assessee By S/Shri Manjit Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 01.04.2019 O R D E R

143(3) of the Act was completed computing income at Rs.94,95,920/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeals before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Subsequently after initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty at Rs.18,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2006-07 was levied for concealing the income by furnishing wrong particulars of income. Aggrieved assessee

SHRI USMAN KHAN,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeals before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Subsequently after initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty at Rs.16,50,000/- and Rs.36,70,000/- for Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2008-09 was imposed for concealing the income by furnishing wrong particulars of income. Aggrieved assessee preferred

SHRI USMAN KHAN,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeals before Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. Subsequently after initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty at Rs.16,50,000/- and Rs.36,70,000/- for Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2008-09 was imposed for concealing the income by furnishing wrong particulars of income. Aggrieved assessee preferred

VAISHALI SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

section 271(1)(b) of the Act and subsequently levied of penalty of Rs.10,000/- in each case. 12. It is brought to our notice that except in the case of Sunit Madhok, assessments in all the other assessee(s) have been framed u/s 153A r.w.s 143