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

3 and also in 23 Keti Construction (India) Ltd & Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd. ITA Nos. 877 & 878/Ind/2019 concluding para 5 & 6 of the penalty order. As per the 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. Penalty can be imposed

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) of the Act. We find that on page 3 of the assessment order, the assessing order, AO observed as under:- “As the assessee has concealed/furnished the inaccurate particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s

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) of the Act. We find that on page 3 of the assessment order, the assessing order, AO observed as under:- “As the assessee has concealed/furnished the inaccurate particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s

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) of the Act. We find that on page 3 of the assessment order, the assessing order, AO observed as under:- “As the assessee has concealed/furnished the inaccurate particulars of income therefore, penalty u/s

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

3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section which means that before imposing the penalty under sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the levy of penalty

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

3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section which means that before imposing the penalty under sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the levy of penalty

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

3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section which means that before imposing the penalty under sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the levy of penalty

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

3) of section 271AAB the provisions of section 274 and 275 as far as may be applied in relation to the penalty referred in this section which means that before imposing the penalty under sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the levy of penalty

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 271

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 271

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 271

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 271

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

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

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 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

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

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

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 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

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

3), dated 28.03.2014 survived. Later on, the AO initiated fresh 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

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

Section\n271(1)(c) and 271(AA) of the Act of 1961. The learned Tribunal has\ncommitted an error in allowing the appeal and setting aside the well\nreasoned order of penalty. She also submits that the ITAT erred in not\nconsidered the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. She\nduring the course of the arguments very specifically admitted that

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\N\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\N\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing 19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement 07.

Section\n271(1)(c) and 271(AA) of the Act of 1961. The learned Tribunal has\ncommitted an error in allowing the appeal and setting aside the well\nreasoned order of penalty. She also submits that the ITAT erred in not\nconsidered the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. She\nduring the course of the arguments very specifically admitted that

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\N\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Nacit-1(1),\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Nbhopal\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Assessee/Appellant)\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

Section\n271(1)(c) and 271(AA) of the Act of 1961. The learned Tribunal has\ncommitted an error in allowing the appeal and setting aside the well\nreasoned order of penalty. She also submits that the ITAT erred in not\nconsidered the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer. She\nduring the course of the arguments very specifically admitted that