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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were deleted observing as follows :- 8. We have considered the facts] perused the material on record, and gone through the assessment order and penalty order. A perusal of the penalty order reveals that the AO has rejected the contentions of the assessee on the basis that the undisclosed income is declared as result

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were deleted observing as follows :- 8. We have considered the facts] perused the material on record, and gone through the assessment order and penalty order. A perusal of the penalty order reveals that the AO has rejected the contentions of the assessee on the basis that the undisclosed income is declared as result

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were deleted observing as follows :- 8. We have considered the facts] perused the material on record, and gone through the assessment order and penalty order. A perusal of the penalty order reveals that the AO has rejected the contentions of the assessee on the basis that the undisclosed income is declared as result

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

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

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

23 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 271AAB and 274 of the Act indicates that the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but directory. Accordingly we hold that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory

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

23 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 271AAB and 274 of the Act indicates that the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but directory. Accordingly we hold that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory

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

23 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 271AAB and 274 of the Act indicates that the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but directory. Accordingly we hold that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory

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

23 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 271AAB and 274 of the Act indicates that the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but directory. Accordingly we hold that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory

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

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

23-04-2019 confirmed the penalty of Rs. 6,25,000/- as levied by the assessing officer under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 by observing that the impugned amount would not have been offered for taxation had there been no search and seizure operation. The Ld CIT (A) confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271AAA

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

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

23-04-2019 confirmed the penalty of Rs. 6,25,000/- as levied by the assessing officer under section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 by observing that the impugned amount would not have been offered for taxation had there been no search and seizure operation. The Ld CIT (A) confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271AAA

SHRI KULWANT SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, INDORE

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

23 139, hence the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. The submissions filed by the assessee has been reproduced by the AO in the penalty order. The AO held that after insertion of Explanation 5A of Section

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 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

23 to 26 in ITA No.961/Ind/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12, we direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts

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

23 to 26 in ITA No.961/Ind/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12, we direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “On the facts