M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

SHRI KULWANT SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, INDORE

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

u/s. 271(1)(c) and section 271AA. Thus, we find that the charge against which the penalty is to be levied was not specific. It is now a settled proposition that when the charge itself is not a specific and is vague, penalty cannot be levied. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Ashok

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

u/s 274 is vague and not in accordance with law. As per provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there are two different charges i.e. the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty can be imposed for a specific charge. It is a settled proposition that both these limbs i.e. concealment

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:

292 ITR 11 (SC) it is now a settled proposition that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotation. It is equally settled proposition that where the charge for levying penalty is not specific, the notice U/S 271 (1)( c) is bad in law as it does not mentioned the specific limb of section

SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR GUPTA ,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1 (2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee pertaining to Assessment

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Years 2007-08 Shri Akhilesh Kumar Ito-1(2), Gupta, Bhopal Plot No.162, Shop G, Ashirvad Complex, Zone-!, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aenpg0415N Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

292 ITR 0011 (SC) (iii) Bhagirath Prasad Bilgaiya vs. CIT 139 ITR 0902 (MP) (iv) CIT vs. S.M. Construction (ITA No.412/2013)(Mumbai HC) (v) CIT vs. Gem Granites 86 CCH 0160(Chennai HC) (vi) CIT vs. Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Ltd. 88 CCH 0036(SC) (vii)CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory 83 CCH 0282 (Karnataka HC) (viii) National Thermal

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

292 ITR 49 (Del.), (ii)CLT vs Goetze (India) Ltd. 229 CTR 167 (Del.) 2.4 He has further submitted that there is only one electricity meter in both units. The genuineness of the total electricity expenses is not disputed. Unit-II though 100% export Oriented Unit Page 4 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. (EOU) yet no deduction

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

292 ITR 49 (Del.), (ii)CLT vs Goetze (India) Ltd. 229 CTR 167 (Del.) 2.4 He has further submitted that there is only one electricity meter in both units. The genuineness of the total electricity expenses is not disputed. Unit-II though 100% export Oriented Unit Page 4 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. (EOU) yet no deduction

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

292 ITR 49 (Del.), (ii)CLT vs Goetze (India) Ltd. 229 CTR 167 (Del.) 2.4 He has further submitted that there is only one electricity meter in both units. The genuineness of the total electricity expenses is not disputed. Unit-II though 100% export Oriented Unit Page 4 of 25 ITANo.275 to 277/Ind/2023 RVT Technologies Ltd. (EOU) yet no deduction

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

271 AAA of I. T. Act.” 6. From the bare reading of the reply filed by the assessee, it appears that the assessee sought to justify that the condition stipulated under the ITA No.252/Ind/2017 (Shri Surendra Singh Bhatia vs. JCIT) Asst.Year.– 2008-09 - 6 - provision of sub-Section (2) of Section 271AAA of the Act has been complied with