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

2 (two) limbs have been mentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non mentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including orders

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 (two) limbs have been mentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non mentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including orders

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 (two) limbs have been mentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non mentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including orders

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 (two) limbs have been mentioned. It is not averred in the notice(s) as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The non mentioning of specific charge in the notice(s) for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vitiates the notice(s) including orders

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

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 on 15/12/2017 at 11:30 AM and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271AAB of the Income

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 .

2) in I.T.A. No. 2555/ Mum/2012 order dtd. 28.04.2017 has also held that the notice issued u/s. 274 by the AO is untenable as it suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. In this case though the AO recorded in the assessment order that penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) are to be initiated for furnishing

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) in ITANo.1796 & 1597/Mum/2014 (I.T.A.T., Mumbai) vi. S. Chandrashekar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 98 CCH 0398 (Karnataka High Court) vii. CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. in 78 CCH 0283 (SC) viii. M/s. Shree Coal Enterprises (I) vs. ACIT 3(1) in ITANo.516/Ind/2017(I.T.A.T., Indore) 9. Per Contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the orders

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

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:

2 - Through these ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 60,00,0001- U/S 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and also the initiation of the penalty proceedings uls 271(1)(c) and also the penalty show cause notice issued uls 274. 5.1.1 It is seen that the appellant filed its return

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

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

Appeals are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

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