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

271(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity and the resulting situation

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(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity and the resulting situation

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

271(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity and the resulting situation

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

2 - Through these ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 50,00,0001- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and also the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and also the penalty show cause notice issued u/s 274. It is seen that the appellant filed its return

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

2 - Through these ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 50,00,0001- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and also the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and also the penalty show cause notice issued u/s 274. It is seen that the appellant filed its return

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and not under the purview of section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The show cause notice thus suffers from a fatal error which is not curable under section 292BB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and henceforth, penalty of Rs. 6,25,000/- as levied under section 271AAA

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and not under the purview of section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The show cause notice thus suffers from a fatal error which is not curable under section 292BB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and henceforth, penalty of Rs. 6,25,000/- as levied under section 271AAA

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

14. In view of our above findings wherein we have quashed the very initiation of penalty proceedings u/s Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the other grounds raised in these 9 appeals become infructuous. 15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

14. In view of our above findings wherein we have quashed the very initiation of penalty proceedings u/s Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the other grounds raised in these 9 appeals become infructuous. 15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

14. In view of our above findings wherein we have quashed the very initiation of penalty proceedings u/s Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the other grounds raised in these 9 appeals become infructuous. 15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA

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

2 (two) limbs have been mentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non mentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including orders

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

2 (two) limbs have been mentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non mentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including orders

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

2 (two) limbs have been mentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non mentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including orders

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

2 (two) limbs have been mentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non mentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including orders

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

2. That the Ld. Counsel of the appellant has enclosed the notices u/s 271 (l)(c ) issued by the AO on 30.l2.2009, 24.12.2010 and 26.12.2011 for the A Y 2007- 08,2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively in support of his contentions. 3. That while contending that AO had not mentioned in the notice uls 271 (1)( c ) whether

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

2. That the Ld. Counsel of the appellant has enclosed the notices u/s 271 (l)(c ) issued by the AO on 30.l2.2009, 24.12.2010 and 26.12.2011 for the A Y 2007- 08,2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively in support of his contentions. 3. That while contending that AO had not mentioned in the notice uls 271 (1)( c ) whether

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

2. That the Ld. Counsel of the appellant has enclosed the notices u/s 271 (l)(c ) issued by the AO on 30.l2.2009, 24.12.2010 and 26.12.2011 for the A Y 2007- 08,2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively in support of his contentions. 3. That while contending that AO had not mentioned in the notice uls 271 (1)( c ) whether

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

2. That the Ld. Counsel of the appellant has enclosed the notices u/s 271 (l)(c ) issued by the AO on 30.l2.2009, 24.12.2010 and 26.12.2011 for the A Y 2007- 08,2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively in support of his contentions. 3. That while contending that AO had not mentioned in the notice uls 271 (1)( c ) whether