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, 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

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, 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

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL-1, INDORE

b). That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred,\nboth on facts and in law, in confirming the order of penalty passed u/s.\nSection 271(1)(c) of the Act, qua the withdrawal of the deductions aggregating to\nRs.6,70,713/-made by the appellant in his return of income filed under s.153A,\nvis

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable as per the Explanation 4(b) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Having

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable as per the Explanation 4(b) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Having

TURNING POINT ESTATES P LTD ,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniturning Point Estates Pvt. Ltd. Acit 5(1) 6Th Floor, Treasure Island, 11 Indore Vs Tukoganj Main Road . Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aacct 7457 R Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 05. That the penalty levied is not based on the facts of the case and needs to be deleted. 06. That the assessee company craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any of the grounds of appeal. 2. The assesse is a Private Limited Company and engaged

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI PARESH M JOSHI (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, a penalty of Rs.10,000/-( Ten thousand only) was imposed on the assessee, as the assessee had committed the default within the meaning of section

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

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANUPUR vs. JOINT COMMISIIONER OF INCOME TAX -OSD, CENTRAL-1, INDORE , INDORE

section 271(1)(c) followed by follow-up letters dated 31.05.2018. Copies\nof show-cause notices and follow-up letters are placed in Paper-Book at\nPages 141-142, 155-156 & 157-158. Ultimately, the AO imposed penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.2,10,000/-, 2,70,000/- and 3,20,000/- respectively for\nthose three years

RAJYESHWAR RETAIL TRADE SYSTEMS PVT LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result- Impugned order is set aside and Penalty of

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

u/s 27 1(1)(b) of the Act, a penalty of Rs.10,000/-[ Ten thousand only] was imposed on the assessee, as the assessee had committed the default within the meaning of section 271(1

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

Appeals are allowed

u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021. Ld.\nAR/assessee is harping on the provision of section 273B, therefore at first we re-produce the same:\n“273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, ………………, clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, no penalty

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

Appeals are allowed

u/s 142(1) dated 19.02.2021. Ld. AR/assessee is harping on the provision of section 273B, therefore at first we re-produce the same:\n\n“273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, ………………, clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, no penalty