SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

section (1B) in Sec. 271 by Finance Act, 2008 w.r.e.f. 1.4.1989 provided that direction for initiation of penalty proceedings in the order of assessment shall be deemed to constitute such satisfaction. In the assessment we find that there is no such direction. Direction is given only to the staff to issue ‘AO, DN & Challan & Pen. Notice u/s 271(1

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

section (1B) in Sec. 271 by Finance Act, 2008 w.r.e.f. 1.4.1989 provided that direction for initiation of penalty proceedings in the order of assessment shall be deemed to constitute such satisfaction. In the assessment we find that there is no such direction. Direction is given only to the staff to issue ‘AO, DN & Challan & Pen. Notice u/s 271(1

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

section (1B) in Sec. 271 by Finance Act, 2008 w.r.e.f. 1.4.1989 provided that direction for initiation of penalty proceedings in the order of assessment shall be deemed to constitute such satisfaction. In the assessment we find that there is no such direction. Direction is given only to the staff to issue ‘AO, DN & Challan & Pen. Notice u/s 271(1

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

section (1B) in Sec. 271 by Finance Act, 2008 w.r.e.f. 1.4.1989 provided that direction for initiation of penalty proceedings in the order of assessment shall be deemed to constitute such satisfaction. In the assessment we find that there is no such direction. Direction is given only to the staff to issue ‘AO, DN & Challan & Pen. Notice u/s 271(1

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

271(1)(c) cannot be considered a good ground for invoking section 263 Master Vijay Oswal ITO [2003] 87 ITO 95 (Rajkot)(Trib). 4. Total income of the assessee was Rs. 7,41,07,848 including surrender income. It is incorrect to say that the AD has not obtained the break-up of income of Rs.41,07,848/- (excluding

THE ACIT -3(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MAYA SPINNERS LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 1996-97

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961(hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) observed that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained addition in respect of disallowance of expenses on expansion of Rs.2,00,44,282/-. Thus he imposed penalty on this issue. 4. Against this the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who passed impugned

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) but on perusal of his order, it is very much apparent that he has merely upheld AO’s observations and not given his independent finding even for the disallowance. From the details of expenditure placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee has done significant business at least with Spain and Turkey

INDORE MANDAL DAK TAR KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MY. INDORE,INDORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , INDORE

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

282. The said decision is not applicable in the facts of the present case and the CIT(A) decided the appeal without giving an opportunity to the assessee to comments on this decision. Thus he has pleaded that the matter may be set aside to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing

INDORE MANDAL DAK TAR KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MY. INDORE,INDORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL CIT , INDORE

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

282. The said decision is not applicable in the facts of the present case and the CIT(A) decided the appeal without giving an opportunity to the assessee to comments on this decision. Thus he has pleaded that the matter may be set aside to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing