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

u/s 271 (1)( c) on the ground that there was no satisfaction in the penalty order as well, as both the charges were reiterated in the penalty order. It is also contended that the penalty order is vague as on one hand Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) has been referred in Para 3.3 of the penalty order

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

section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty

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

section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty

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

section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , the entire penalty imposed by Ld. CIT(A) in impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Tribunal. Further law in this regard is fairly settled. The Ld. AR then invited our attention to paper book page 1 to 6 which are copies of notice(s) all dated 19.03.2013 and follow

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , the entire penalty imposed by Ld. CIT(A) in impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Tribunal. Further law in this regard is fairly settled. The Ld. AR then invited our attention to paper book page 1 to 6 which are copies of notice(s) all dated 19.03.2013 and follow

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , the entire penalty imposed by Ld. CIT(A) in impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Tribunal. Further law in this regard is fairly settled. The Ld. AR then invited our attention to paper book page 1 to 6 which are copies of notice(s) all dated 19.03.2013 and follow

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , the entire penalty imposed by Ld. CIT(A) in impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Tribunal. Further law in this regard is fairly settled. The Ld. AR then invited our attention to paper book page 1 to 6 which are copies of notice(s) all dated 19.03.2013 and follow

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 and not 271AAB. In this respect, the copy of notice has been produced by the ld. A.R. before me. It is seen that the ld. A.R is correct in observing that the section of penalty has not been correctly mentioned by the AO in the caption. However, the AO will get the benefit of section 292BB of the Income

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 and not 271AAB. In this respect, the copy of notice has been produced by the ld. A.R. before me. It is seen that the ld. A.R is correct in observing that the section of penalty has not been correctly mentioned by the AO in the caption. However, the AO will get the benefit of section 292BB of the Income

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 and not 271AAB. In this respect, the copy of notice has been produced by the ld. A.R. before me. It is seen that the ld. A.R is correct in observing that the section of penalty has not been correctly mentioned by the AO in the caption. However, the AO will get the benefit of section 292BB of the Income

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 and not 271AAB. In this respect, the copy of notice has been produced by the ld. A.R. before me. It is seen that the ld. A.R is correct in observing that the section of penalty has not been correctly mentioned by the AO in the caption. However, the AO will get the benefit of section 292BB of the Income

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the entire penalty\nimposed by Ld. CIT(A) in impugned order deserves to be set aside\nby this Tribunal. Further law in this regard is fairly settled. The\nLd. AR then invited our attention to paper book page 1 to 6 which\nare copies of notice(s) all dated 19.03.2013 and follow

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act the entire penalty\nimposed by Ld. CIT(A) in impugned order deserves to be set aside\nby this Tribunal. Further law in this regard is fairly settled. The\nLd. AR then invited our attention to paper book page 1 to 6 which\nare copies of notice(s) all dated 19.03.2013 and follow

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

22 Taxman 173) wherein their lordships have categorically held that before a penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authorities have to bring to record cogent material or circumstances leading to a reasonable conclusion that the additions made during the assessment represent assessee's income and merely because the particular amount has been assessed

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

22 Taxman 173) wherein their lordships have categorically held that before a penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authorities have to bring to record cogent material or circumstances leading to a reasonable conclusion that the additions made during the assessment represent assessee's income and merely because the particular amount has been assessed

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

22 Taxman 173) wherein their lordships have categorically held that before a penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authorities have to bring to record cogent material or circumstances leading to a reasonable conclusion that the additions made during the assessment represent assessee's income and merely because the particular amount has been assessed

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

22 Taxman 173) wherein their lordships have categorically held that before a penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the authorities have to bring to record cogent material or circumstances leading to a reasonable conclusion that the additions made during the assessment represent assessee's income and merely because the particular amount has been assessed