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 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

u/s. 271AAA for the AYs under consideration in the case of respective assessees.” [Emphasis Supplied] 2.5.1] Further, in the facts of the present case, legitimate amount of tax due on additional income had been paid well before the conclusion of the assessment as well as penalty proceedings. 2.5.2] The provision of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Income

SHRI DIPAK KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT,OSD, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

u/s. 271AAA for the AYs under consideration in the case of respective assessees.” [Emphasis Supplied] 2.5.1] Further, in the facts of the present case, legitimate amount of tax due on additional income had been paid well before the conclusion of the assessment as well as penalty proceedings. 2.5.2] The provision of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Income

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

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

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. DY. CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2012-13

4 of section 271 of the Act with prospective effect, it is now a settled position that prior to 1/4/2016, where the income tax payable on the total income as computed under the normal provisions of the Act is less Flexituff International Ltd. ITANo.512/Ind/2019 than the tax payable on the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act, then penalty under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE vs. SEWA SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT TILLOR KHURAD, INDORE

172 (Raj.) and further has erroneously concluded that\nassessee had demonstrated a reasonable cause for the\ncontravention. The Ld. DR pointed out that in Rajasthan High\nCourt judgment (supra) assessee was under a bonafide belief\nthat Tax Auditors had not highlighted any violation of Section\n269SS/269T whereas in the stark contrast in the present case\nthe Tax Auditors have explicitly

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

THE ACIT, 3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was passed vide order dated 29.06.2012 thereby, penalty of Rs.68,40,000/- was imposed. 4. Against this the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted this penalty against which revenue has filed the present appeal. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued that

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniidea Cellular Ltd. Jcit 139-140 Electronics Complex Indore Vs. Pardeshipura Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 2100P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

172 Taxman 142 (Delhi) In favour of the Revenue (i).Bharti Cellular ltd. Vs. AcIT (2011) 244 ITR 185 (Calcutta) (ii). Vodafone Essar Cellular ltd. Vs. AcIT (2011) 332 ITR 255 (Kerala) 9. It is clear from the above mentioned decisions that the issue of applicability of section 194H in respect of the transactions in question is highly debatable

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH THAKUR, INDORE

In the result, all these cross appeals i

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-3(1) Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Indore 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M.P. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Agops3983Q Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Virendra Singh Thakur Acit, 3(1) 125/126, Patnipura, Indore बनाम/ M.P. Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan:Agops3983Q

Penalty also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the for A.Y. 2012-13 which is under appeal before us. 4. We first take up cross appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee and Revenue: ITANo.28/Ind/2017 by Assessee 1.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred and confirmed the action of assessing officer