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

Appeal is allowed

u/s 271AAB by mentioning\nwrong charge of section 271(1)(c) is not legal and cannot be sustained in the\neyes of law. Being so, we quash the penalty imposed by AO. The assessee\nsucceeds in this appeal.\n\n21.\nAs the assessee has already succeeded in this appeal, other contentions\nraised by Ld. AR are not required

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

153A for furnishing of return of income expires, as the case may be; (b) “Specified previous year” means the previous year- (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee

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

153A for furnishing of return of income expires, as the case may be; (b) “Specified previous year” means the previous year- (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee

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

153A for furnishing of return of income expires, as the case may be; (b) “Specified previous year” means the previous year- (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee

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

153A for furnishing of return of income expires, as the case may be; (b) “Specified previous year” means the previous year- (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

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

153A r.w.s.143(3) vide assessment-order dated\n29.12.2017 in which the AO made year-wise additions vide Para 10.1 of\nassessment-order. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated proceeding u/s\n271(1)(c) and issued show-cause notices dated 29.12.2017 u/s 274 read\nwith section 271(1)(c) followed by follow-up letters dated 31.05.2018. Copies\nof show-cause notices

VIJAYA DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

153A. During assessment proceedings, the AO issued certain notices to assessee. For AY 2013-14, the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 requiring the assessee to make compliance by 24.02.2021 but finding non-compliance from assessee, the AO imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) vide penalty-order dated 26.03.2021 [Similar penalty of Rs.10

VIJAYA DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

153A. During assessment proceedings, the AO issued certain notices to assessee. For AY 2013-14, the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 requiring the assessee to make compliance by 24.02.2021 but finding non-compliance from assessee, the AO imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) vide penalty-order dated 26.03.2021 [Similar penalty of Rs.10

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

153A r.w.s.143(3) vide assessment-order dated\n29.12.2017 in which the AO made year-wise additions vide Para 10.1 of\nassessment-order. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated proceeding u/s\n271(1)(c) and issued show-cause notices dated 29.12.2017 u/s 274 read\nwith section 271(1)(c) followed by follow-up letters dated 31.05.2018. Copies\nof show-cause notices

VIJAYA DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

153A. During assessment\nproceedings, the AO issued certain notices to assessee. For AY 2013-14, the\nAO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 requiring the assessee to\nmake compliance by 24.02.2021 but finding non-compliance from assessee,\nthe AO imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) vide penalty-order\ndated 26.03.2021 [Similar penalty of Rs.10

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE,INDORE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

b. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- alleging concealment of income despite the fact that the Assessee has disclosed income before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. c. The order passed u/s 250 on 30/08/2024

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

b. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- alleging concealment of income despite the fact that the Assessee has disclosed income before Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. c. The order passed u/s 250 on 30/08/2024

VIJAYA DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

153A. During assessment\nproceedings, the AO issued certain notices to assessee. For AY 2013-14, the\nAO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021 requiring the assessee to\nmake compliance by 24.02.2021 but finding non-compliance from assessee,\nthe AO imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) vide penalty-order\ndated 26.03.2021 [Similar penalty of Rs.10

SHARAD KUMAR DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

271(1)(b)/270A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the\nact"], have been upheld.\n2.\nHeard the learned Representatives of both sides and the case records\nperused.\n3. At the start of hearing, learned Representatives of both sides agreed\nthat the underlying facts and controversy involved in these seven appeals\nare identical to the seven appeals

SHARAD KUMAR DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

271(1)(b)/270A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the\nact"], have been upheld.\n2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and the case records\nperused.\n3. At the start of hearing, learned Representatives of both sides agreed\nthat the underlying facts and controversy involved in these seven appeals\nare identical to the seven appeals