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

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 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

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

34 Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 4.1 Ground No. 1 & 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 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

34 Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 4.1 Ground No. 1 & 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

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, No……………….dated………………. have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, You are hereby requested to appear before me at 3:30 p.m on 20/0212014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(l)(c) of the Income

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, No……………….dated………………. have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, You are hereby requested to appear before me at 3:30 p.m on 20/0212014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(l)(c) of the Income

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, No……………….dated………………. have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, You are hereby requested to appear before me at 3:30 p.m on 20/0212014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(l)(c) of the Income

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

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

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

34 of the India Income Tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish under section 139(+) by a notice given under section 139(2)148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, No. dated have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the allowed and the manner required by the side section 139(1) or by such notice

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. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that

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. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that

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. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that

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. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that

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. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that

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. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that

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. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

u/s 292BB of the Act. Therefore, we hereby quash the penalty order.” [Emphasis Supplied] 1.4.4] The Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri R. Elangovan [ITA No. 1199/CHNY/2017] has categorically held that: “5…………..It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 271AAA of the Act CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 ; CIT v. Radha KishanGoel [2005] 278 ITR 454, followed. (Para 16)" 4.02 Your Honour, the provisions of section 271AAA are pari materia with that of erstwhile Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act having its application for grant of immunity from penalty under

THE ACIT -4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI MUKESH SANGLA, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2010-11 Acit-4(1), Shri Mukesh Sangla, Indore बनाम/ Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Anaps5579F

2:- Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the initiation of the penalty proceedings and also the levy of penalty of Rs. 3,77,60,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is stated in the penalty order that during the assessment proceedings in response to notice u/s 153A the assessee voluntarily disclosed