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

Appeal is allowed

271(1)(c) whereas the notice\nhas been issued u/s 271AAB. In nutshell, Ld. AR argued that the AO has\nspecified a wrong charge in the notice issued to assessee and thereby\ncommitted a grave illegality in initiating penalty-proceeding. Therefore, Ld. AR\ncontended, the penalty proceeding initiated by AO is liable to be stuck down.\nTo support his contention

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

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

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

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

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

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

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

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S. PANJWANI PACKAGING P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

148 of the Act were duly served on the assessee and the income was assessed and also penalty u/s 271(1(c) levied as follows; S.No Assessment Year Assessed Income Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 1 1987-88 Rs.20,67,290/- Rs.5,56,050/- 2 1988-89 Rs.58,27,470/- Rs.20,24,236/- 3 1989-90 Rs.88,25,810/- Rs.14

M/S. PANJWANI PACKAGING P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

148 of the Act were duly served on the assessee and the income was assessed and also penalty u/s 271(1(c) levied as follows; S.No Assessment Year Assessed Income Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 1 1987-88 Rs.20,67,290/- Rs.5,56,050/- 2 1988-89 Rs.58,27,470/- Rs.20,24,236/- 3 1989-90 Rs.88,25,810/- Rs.14

M/S. PANJWANI PACKAGING P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

148 of the Act were duly served on the assessee and the income was assessed and also penalty u/s 271(1(c) levied as follows; S.No Assessment Year Assessed Income Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 1 1987-88 Rs.20,67,290/- Rs.5,56,050/- 2 1988-89 Rs.58,27,470/- Rs.20,24,236/- 3 1989-90 Rs.88,25,810/- Rs.14

M/S. PANJWANI PACKAGING P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

148 of the Act were duly served on the assessee and the income was assessed and also penalty u/s 271(1(c) levied as follows; S.No Assessment Year Assessed Income Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 1 1987-88 Rs.20,67,290/- Rs.5,56,050/- 2 1988-89 Rs.58,27,470/- Rs.20,24,236/- 3 1989-90 Rs.88,25,810/- Rs.14

M/S. PANJWANI PACKAGING P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

148 of the Act were duly served on the assessee and the income was assessed and also penalty u/s 271(1(c) levied as follows; S.No Assessment Year Assessed Income Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 1 1987-88 Rs.20,67,290/- Rs.5,56,050/- 2 1988-89 Rs.58,27,470/- Rs.20,24,236/- 3 1989-90 Rs.88,25,810/- Rs.14

M/S. PANJWANI PACKAGING P. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

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

148 of the Act were duly served on the assessee and the income was assessed and also penalty u/s 271(1(c) levied as follows; S.No Assessment Year Assessed Income Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 1 1987-88 Rs.20,67,290/- Rs.5,56,050/- 2 1988-89 Rs.58,27,470/- Rs.20,24,236/- 3 1989-90 Rs.88,25,810/- Rs.14

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

u/s 271(1)(c) and on appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court exonerated assessee from penalty. The relevant portion of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order is re-produced below: “5. Even though the Statement indicated that the provision towards payment of gratuity was not allowable, the assessee claimed a deduction thereon in its return of income. On the basis

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

u/s 271(1)(c) and on appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court exonerated assessee from penalty. The relevant portion of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order is re-produced below: “5. Even though the Statement indicated that the provision towards payment of gratuity was not allowable, the assessee claimed a deduction thereon in its return of income. On the basis

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita