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

270A, section 271(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity

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

270A, section 271(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity

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

270A, section 271(1)(c) and section 271AAB so as to paint a picture that the Explanation to section 271AAB was not exhaustively defining the term “Undisclosed income” and thereafter, in next Para No. 4.1.7, went on observing that if the definition of “undisclosed income” is interpretated as exhaustive, the section 271AAB shall be reduced to a nullity

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

270A(1) there is a\nprovision that Ld. AO during the course of any proceedings\nunder the act direct that any person who has under reported\nhis Income shall be liable to pay a penalty in addition to tax\nif any, on under reported Income. Similar provision is under\nsection 271 AAD. Section 271(1) contemplates satisfaction in\ncourse

RAM BABU SINGH,BIHAR vs. THE ITO-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ram Babu Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Near Gayatri Mandir, 2(1), बनाम/ Saharsa, Bhopal Vs. Bihar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cufps2957D Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

270A. This original approach applied by AO was very much in accordance with law. However, subsequently the AO has passed rectification-order on 13.10.2022 charging tax at higher rate of 60%. The AO cannot do so. Therefore, the rectification-order is against the very scheme of act itself. (ii) Secondly, there is a strong judicial view coming from various decisions

THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE vs. KU. NISHITA SINGHAL, MHOW DISTT. INDORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit-5(1) Indore : Appellant

270A or} clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 45a!or sub-section (1 A}}. (3) The provision of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in © relation to the penalty referred to in this section .. Explanation

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

VIJAYA DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the assessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make a useful reference to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) holding thus while dealing a case of penalty imposed under Orissa

VIJAYA DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the\nassessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make\na useful reference to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nHindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) holding\nthus while dealing a case of penalty imposed under Orissa

VIJAYA DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the\nassessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make\na useful reference to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nHindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) holding\nthus while dealing a case of penalty imposed under Orissa

VIJAYA DARAK,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed

u/s 273B on account of Covid pandemic and therefore the\nassessee should not be saddled with the levy of penalty. We may also make\na useful reference to the landmark decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nHindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) holding\nthus while dealing a case of penalty imposed under Orissa

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit