GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

u/s 271AAB by mentioning\nwrong charge of section 271(1)(c) is not legal and cannot be sustained in the\neyes of law. Being so, we quash the penalty imposed by AO. The assessee\nsucceeds in this appeal.\n\n21.\nAs the assessee has already succeeded in this appeal, other contentions\nraised by Ld. AR are not required

PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS AND TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LIMITED,MHOW vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, INDORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Asphalting & Toll Acit Central Circle -1 Highways (India) Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aabcp0398N Assessee By Shri Anup Garg & Vikas Guru, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2025

Section 271AAB(1), or clause (a) or (b) of 271AAB (1A) of the Act, penalty is leviable on the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the notice initiating penalty u/s 271 AAB of the Act is vague

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars.” Page 10 of 22 ITA No. 471/Ind/2023 - AY 2016-17 SRK Dev Build

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

271(1)(c) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. (iii) Section 271AAB deals

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

271(1)(c) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. (iii) Section 271AAB deals

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

271(1)(c) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. (iii) Section 271AAB deals

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

271(1)(c) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. (iii) Section 271AAB deals

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITANos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) has been held to be unjustified by Coordinate Bench Indore in the case of Pramila Ghodhe vs. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0401 dated 20.03.2017 observing as follows: “We have considered the facts, rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment in this case was made under section

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITANos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) has been held to be unjustified by Coordinate Bench Indore in the case of Pramila Ghodhe vs. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0401 dated 20.03.2017 observing as follows: “We have considered the facts, rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment in this case was made under section

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITANos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) has been held to be unjustified by Coordinate Bench Indore in the case of Pramila Ghodhe vs. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0401 dated 20.03.2017 observing as follows: “We have considered the facts, rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment in this case was made under section

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITANos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) has been held to be unjustified by Coordinate Bench Indore in the case of Pramila Ghodhe vs. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0401 dated 20.03.2017 observing as follows: “We have considered the facts, rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment in this case was made under section

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITANos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) has been held to be unjustified by Coordinate Bench Indore in the case of Pramila Ghodhe vs. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0401 dated 20.03.2017 observing as follows: “We have considered the facts, rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment in this case was made under section

HARMINDER SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITANos

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) has been held to be unjustified by Coordinate Bench Indore in the case of Pramila Ghodhe vs. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0401 dated 20.03.2017 observing as follows: “We have considered the facts, rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessment in this case was made under section

SHRI USMAN KHAN,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

B. Whether the Ld. AO was justified in issuing notices u/s 271AAA as well as 271(1)(c ) and that too without specifying any exact charge therein and this also proves that the Ld. AO was not sure about the exact charge under which he sought to impose penalty? 2. That the aforesaid grounds are purely legal grounds . Raising

SHRI USMAN KHAN,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

B. Whether the Ld. AO was justified in issuing notices u/s 271AAA as well as 271(1)(c ) and that too without specifying any exact charge therein and this also proves that the Ld. AO was not sure about the exact charge under which he sought to impose penalty? 2. That the aforesaid grounds are purely legal grounds . Raising

M/S REGENT BEERS AND WINES LTD. ,INDORE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty in certain cases is provided u/s 273B of the Act which reads as follows: ITANo.338 of 2018 and others 11 Sunit Madhok and others 273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of [clause (b) sub section (1) of ] [section 271, section

PATEL EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)- !, BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty in certain cases is provided u/s 273B of the Act which reads as follows: ITANo.338 of 2018 and others 11 Sunit Madhok and others 273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of [clause (b) sub section (1) of ] [section 271, section

SUNIT MADHOK,INDORE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL-1, , BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

penalty in certain cases is provided u/s 273B of the Act which reads as follows: ITANo.338 of 2018 and others 11 Sunit Madhok and others 273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of [clause (b) sub section (1) of ] [section 271, section