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

26 of 29 Prem Chawla & other ITA Nos. 673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024– AY 2000-2001to 2006-07 respect of additional income, which has been offered following the search and the Assessing Officer is satisfied that it is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271

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

26 of 29 Prem Chawla & other ITA Nos. 673 to 684/Ind/2024 & 755/Ind/2024– AY 2000-2001to 2006-07 respect of additional income, which has been offered following the search and the Assessing Officer is satisfied that it is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.” Thus the Tribunal has held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and shall be based on judicious decision of the AO. Hence we fortify our view by the above decisions

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

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

SRK DEV BUILD PVT LTD.,INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT 5(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Srk Dev Build Pvt. Ltd, Dcit/Acit-5(1) 18/2, Lasudia Mori, Indore बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaqcs3387P Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & S.N. Goyal, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2024

u/s 271(1)(c), which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee was not guilty of any concealment or giving inaccurate particulars and had raised a debatable issue. In such a situation, penalty was deleted. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. 4. In view of the finding of the Tribunal

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

271(a)(b)(c)(d).\nUnder section 271AAC(1) an obligation is casted where\nincome determined includes any income referred to in\nsection 68,69,69A,69B, 69C, 69D to pay penalty is addition\nto tax payable u/s 115BBE. While the actual proceeding\nu/s 271AAC(1) later on may be separate & independent but\nwhile determining such income

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c) is reckoned from the date of the assessment order dated 6.11.2007, the penalty order passed by the Joint Commissioner on 29.7.2008 is beyond the time permitted in the above section. As we have already held, the initiation of the penalty proceedings is not by the Assessing Officer but by the Joint Commissioner and if that

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

271(1) (c) penalty for a "bona fide/ inadvertent/human error". The below observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) is relevant in this context - "Penalty is not to be imposed if there is no conscious breach of law. An order imposing penalty for failure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

271(1) (c) penalty for a "bona fide/ inadvertent/human error". The below observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) is relevant in this context - "Penalty is not to be imposed if there is no conscious breach of law. An order imposing penalty for failure

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. DY. CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 115JC of the Act also. 7. Accordingly, the Board hereby directs that no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned. 8. From perusal of the above referred CBDT Circular we find

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

26 ITR 775 (SC); C. Vasantial and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) and KishinchandChellaram v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC): (1980) 19 CTR 360: (1980) 4 Taxman 29]. In view of this legal position, in our considered view the orders

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

26 ITR 775 (SC); C. Vasantial and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) and KishinchandChellaram v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC): (1980) 19 CTR 360: (1980) 4 Taxman 29]. In view of this legal position, in our considered view the orders