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 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 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,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

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

u/s 274 must be read in conjunction 9 Gaurav Ajmera ITA No. 808/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 with the noting made by AO in assessment-order and when looked this way, it is quite clear that the AO has specified the charge of default committed by assessee which attracted penalty proceeding of section 271AAB. Ld. DR therefore prayed that the assessee

M/S. STI (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In these given facts Hon'ble Court confirmed the view taken by the Tribunal that the show cause notice does not satisfy the requirement of law as the notice was not specific. Relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kulwant Singh (supra

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 .

u/s. 274 both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) were reproduced in the preforma notice and the relevant clauses were not struck off. Whereas in the case of the assessee no specific charges were levied in the assessment order as well as penalty show cause notice. 15. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied the case of M.P. Tourism

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

section 271(1)(c) which intention was also not communicated to the appellant through the notice issued u/s 274. Thus there was no requisite satisfaction in any of the assessment order and also in the notice issued u/s 274. It is also seen that the returned income and the assessed income in this case are same and therefore, penalty u/s

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act in all these cases. " Therefore, following the decision of the Honourable IT A T Indore Bench rendered on 27.06.2018 in the appellant group cases itself, it is held that the penalty levied by the AO in the impugned order is invalid. 5.1.10 Further, the appellant has rightly contended that no proper satisfaction

M/S AKSHAY SHAKTI SHIKSHA AVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Bleita Nos. 518 To 520/Ind/2016 A.Ys. 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

251 UTR 9(S.C.) 16 Akshay Shakti Shiksha ITA Nos.518,519 & 520/Ind/2016 comes to the rescue of the assessee and accordingly no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is attracted in the case. I have considered the above argument. It is seen that the issue is duly covered in favour of Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

M/S AKSHAY SHAKTI SHIKSHA AVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Bleita Nos. 518 To 520/Ind/2016 A.Ys. 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

251 UTR 9(S.C.) 16 Akshay Shakti Shiksha ITA Nos.518,519 & 520/Ind/2016 comes to the rescue of the assessee and accordingly no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is attracted in the case. I have considered the above argument. It is seen that the issue is duly covered in favour of Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

M/S AKSHAY SHAKTI SHIKSHA AVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Bleita Nos. 518 To 520/Ind/2016 A.Ys. 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

251 UTR 9(S.C.) 16 Akshay Shakti Shiksha ITA Nos.518,519 & 520/Ind/2016 comes to the rescue of the assessee and accordingly no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is attracted in the case. I have considered the above argument. It is seen that the issue is duly covered in favour of Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

THE D C I T -3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI DEEPAK KALRA , INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10

section 271(I)(c) of the I.T. Act by not appreciating the fact that the disclosure of income was the result of search operation on the assessee and not voluntary? 4.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in ignoring that if in pursuant to search operation, penalty is not levied

SMT. PADMA KALANI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty of Rs. 67,480/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance of Rs. 3,98,857/- made u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the provisions of Section 251

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

u/s 274 sets in motion the penalty- proceeding. According to Ld. AR, the notice issued by AO is very much vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c). The Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income” and without striking the inapplicable