MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act for AY 2014-15 and the same are discussed together as under as involving similar/same facts of case as advanced by the appellant as per law. Further the appellant has filed these two appeals, one each against assessment order and related penalty order of AO of AY 2014-15 with a delay

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

section 269SS/T need to be invoked and shall accordingly be referred to JCIT (Central), Indore. He also referred immediate next Para 20.6 of assessment-order wherein the AO has mentioned that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed income and therefore penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction and bad in law, as the Assessing Officer failed to record any prima facie satisfaction or reasons in the assessment order justifying the initiation of penalty proceedings. The mere mention of Penalty proceedings u/s

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE,INDORE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are without jurisdiction and bad in law, as the Assessing Officer failed to record any prima facie satisfaction or reasons in the assessment order justifying the initiation of penalty proceedings. The mere mention of Penalty proceedings u/s

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

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

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

penalty u/s 270A and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on such undisclosed income falling within the realm of subsection (1). This clearly establishes the solitary domain of section

SEEMA JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

u/s 271(1)(C). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellant voluntarily in compliance of section 50 C paid additional tax which did not automatically attract the penalty

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Therefore, the penalty-order of AY 2012-13 is unsustainable for this very reason also that there is no satisfaction recorded by AO in assessment-order qua any default having been committed by assessee attracting penalty proceedings of section

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

u/s 271(1)(c) by penalty-order. In first-appeal against penalty-order, the CIT(A) has reversed AO's action and deleted penalty. Now, the revenue has come in appeal before us assailing the order of CIT(A) and claiming that the penalty imposed by AO M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos.772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys

M/S TRUBA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BHOPAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Gupta

penalty leviable under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the principle is applicable with reference to the other provisions also which are penal in nature. Cancellation of registration deprives the assessee of the various benefits which otherwise accrue and hence the provisions are to be considered as in the nature of punishment

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O.” 2.15 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O” preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order dated 28.06.2024” reduced the penalty amount u/s

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O.” 2.15 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O” preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order dated 28.06.2024” reduced the penalty amount u/s

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O.” 2.15 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O” preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order dated 28.06.2024” reduced the penalty amount u/s

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O.” 2.15 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O” preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order dated 28.06.2024” reduced the penalty amount u/s

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

c) of 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

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 269SS/T need to be invoked and shall accordingly be referred to JCIT (Central), Indore. He also referred immediate next Para 20.6 of assessment-order wherein the AO has mentioned that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed income and therefore penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c

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

Appeals are allowed

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

section 269SS/T need to be invoked and shall accordingly be referred to JCIT (Central), Indore. He also referred immediate next Para 20.6 of assessment-order wherein the AO has mentioned that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed income and therefore penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c

SWAN PETRCHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.39,18,000/- being 100% of tax ought to be evaded vide order dated 30.06.2017. Aggrieved by the penalty order the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) but could not succeed. Before the Tribunal the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee itself has filed the revised computation