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

32. (iv) Even in the matter of search cases and penalty levied under Explanation 5A to 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

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

32. (iv) Even in the matter of search cases and penalty levied under Explanation 5A to 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

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

32. (iv) Even in the matter of search cases and penalty levied under Explanation 5A to 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

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 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee; taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

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

32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that the assessee had invested in equity capital of Private Limited companies and in mutual funds. Thus, A.O. proceeded to make addition by invoking provisions of rule 8D. 33. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred

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

32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that the assessee had invested in equity capital of Private Limited companies and in mutual funds. Thus, A.O. proceeded to make addition by invoking provisions of rule 8D. 33. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred

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

32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that the assessee had invested in equity capital of Private Limited companies and in mutual funds. Thus, A.O. proceeded to make addition by invoking provisions of rule 8D. 33. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred

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

32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that the assessee had invested in equity capital of Private Limited companies and in mutual funds. Thus, A.O. proceeded to make addition by invoking provisions of rule 8D. 33. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred

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

32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that the assessee had invested in equity capital of Private Limited companies and in mutual funds. Thus, A.O. proceeded to make addition by invoking provisions of rule 8D. 33. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred

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

32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that the assessee had invested in equity capital of Private Limited companies and in mutual funds. Thus, A.O. proceeded to make addition by invoking provisions of rule 8D. 33. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred

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

32. Ground No.1 is against addition made by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. The facts related to this ground are that the assessee had invested in equity capital of Private Limited companies and in mutual funds. Thus, A.O. proceeded to make addition by invoking provisions of rule 8D. 33. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, it does not contain the Amit Tiwari ingredients of section 271AAB of the Act. Under these facts the notice is improper and is not in accordance with requirement of law. The assessing officer is expected to make his direction clear as to which clause of section 271AAB of the Act, he wishes to invoke

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

u/s 271D of the Act, it is also clear that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thapar Homes Limited reported in 159 taxmann.com 450 has reiterated its stand taken in the earlier case of same name bearing ITA No.19/2021, order dated 11.09.2023, which has also been relied upon by the Ld. AR. Through this order

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

32,050/- was made to the total income of the AY 2014-15, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act was initiated on this issue. 2.5 On the basis of incriminating document, it was found that the PATH group has sold a Crusher at Village-Doll, Distt. Dhar. The Crusher was sold in AY 2011-12 but the depreciation

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:

U/S 271 (1)( c) on the ground that there was no satisfaction in the penalty order as well, as both the charges were reiterated in the penalty order. It is also contended that the penalty order is vague and wrong as the AO has invoked Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) as referred in Para 3.1.2 of the penalty