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

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 was bad-in-law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal

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

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 was bad-in-law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal

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

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 was bad-in-law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal

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

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 was bad-in-law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

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

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) on the footing that the assessee has ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’. In response, the assessee furnished reply on 18.06.2019. After considering assessee’s reply, the AO imposed penalty qua two disallowances Page 2 of 22 ITA No. 471/Ind/2023 - AY 2016-17 SRK Dev Build Pvt. Ltd out of three i.e. qua the disallowance

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. Page 19 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. Page 19 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. Page 19 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall

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 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) 52[or sub-section (1A)]. Page 19 of 40 Mukesh Kumar Ranka & Anju Jain L/H of Late Sushil Jain, Indore ITA Nos.97 & 98/Ind/2024 and 104 & 103/ Ind/2024 - AYs. 2017-18 & 2018-19 (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall

THE ACIT -4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI MUKESH SANGLA, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2010-11 Acit-4(1), Shri Mukesh Sangla, Indore बनाम/ Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Anaps5579F

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing formal notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) along with the order passed u/s

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

271(1)(c). 5.1.3 The appellant has challenged the initiation of the penalty proceedings on the contention that the notice issued under section 274 was a defective notice as no specific charge was mentioned against the appellant. The appellant has challenged the levy of penalty U/S

THE D C I T -3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI DEEPAK KALRA , INDORE

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. During the penalty proceedings assessee made submissions praying for not to levy the penalty but the Ld. A.O was not satisfied and he levied the penalty at Rs.1,43,45,000/-. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the levy of penalty on legal ground contending that

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 274 was also a defective notice as no specific charge was mentioned against the appellant. The appellant has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271 (1

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTD. , INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by Revenue in the case of

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

section 274 was also a defective notice as no specific charge was mentioned against the appellant. The appellant has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271 (1

SHRI DIPAK KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT,OSD, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal

SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

u/s 292BB of the Act. Therefore, we hereby quash the penalty order.” [Emphasis Supplied] 1.4.4] The Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri R. Elangovan [ITA No. 1199/CHNY/2017] has categorically held that: “5…………..It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall