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

15,00,000/- for the year under consideration. In the penalty order, the Ld AO stated that the appellant has made voluntary disclosure in his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act and since all the conditions for levying penalty u/s 271AAB were being satisfied, the same had been levied. 4.1.3. In his turn, the counsel of the appellant

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

15,00,000/- for the year under consideration. In the penalty order, the Ld AO stated that the appellant has made voluntary disclosure in his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act and since all the conditions for levying penalty u/s 271AAB were being satisfied, the same had been levied. 4.1.3. In his turn, the counsel of the appellant

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

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 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

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

15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. In these appeals, the following common grounds have been taken by the assessee :- “(i) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and in upholding the penalty levied by the learned A.O. 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

15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. In these appeals, the following common grounds have been taken by the assessee :- “(i) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and in upholding the penalty levied by the learned A.O. 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

15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. In these appeals, the following common grounds have been taken by the assessee :- “(i) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and in upholding the penalty levied by the learned A.O. 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), Bhopal 2.13 That yet another show cause notice dated 25.01.2016 for Assessment Year 2000-2001 for penalty purposes u/s 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee calling upon him to show cause that why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed upon him. The assessee was requested to appear on 01.02.2016 before

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), Bhopal 2.13 That yet another show cause notice dated 25.01.2016 for Assessment Year 2000-2001 for penalty purposes u/s 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee calling upon him to show cause that why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed upon him. The assessee was requested to appear on 01.02.2016 before

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), Bhopal 2.13 That yet another show cause notice dated 25.01.2016 for Assessment Year 2000-2001 for penalty purposes u/s 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee calling upon him to show cause that why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed upon him. The assessee was requested to appear on 01.02.2016 before

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), Bhopal 2.13 That yet another show cause notice dated 25.01.2016 for Assessment Year 2000-2001 for penalty purposes u/s 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee calling upon him to show cause that why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed upon him. The assessee was requested to appear on 01.02.2016 before

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

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

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