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

u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, I impose a penalty of equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded on account of the above acts of the assesee of Rs. 34,05,436/- i.e. 100% tax evaded.” In the light of the above, we need to examine whether assessment order and the penalty order comply with

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, I impose a penalty of equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded on account of the above acts of the assesee of Rs. 34,05,436/- i.e. 100% tax evaded.” In the light of the above, we need to examine whether assessment order and the penalty order comply with

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, I impose a penalty of equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded on account of the above acts of the assesee of Rs. 34,05,436/- i.e. 100% tax evaded.” In the light of the above, we need to examine whether assessment order and the penalty order comply with

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

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

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

271(1)(c) whereas the notice has been issued u/s 271AAB. In nutshell, Ld. AR argued that the AO has specified a wrong charge in the notice issued to assessee and thereby committed a grave illegality in initiating penalty-proceeding. Therefore, Ld. AR contended, the penalty proceeding initiated by AO is liable to be stuck down. To support his contention

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 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 34. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

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 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 34. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

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 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 34. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

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 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 34. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

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 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 34. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

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 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 34. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

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 14A of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 34. Ld. D.R. could not controvert the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no exempt income during the year under appeal, therefore, respectfully following the decision rendered

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

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

34,47,11,770/-, making additions of Rs. 22,08,80,720/-. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the additions made in the assessment order. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Learned CIT(A) allowed partial relief. The first appellate order was challenged by the assessee as well

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” It is crystal clear that even in the penalty order the Assessing Officer is not sure about the specific charge on the assessee for which penalty has been levied. In these facts, whether the Assessing Officer was justified in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act we find that