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

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

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

35,62,680/-. In response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee had filed return of income on 30/03/2016 for the AY 2014-15, declaring total income at Rs. 14,45,690/- The appellant had revised the deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act to Rs. 17,91,52,742/- in computation of income u/s 153A

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

271(a)(b)(c)(d).\nUnder section 271AAC(1) an obligation is casted where\nincome determined includes any income referred to in\nsection 68,69,69A,69B, 69C, 69D to pay penalty is addition\nto tax payable u/s 115BBE. While the actual proceeding\nu/s 271AAC(1) later on may be separate & independent but\nwhile determining such income

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL-1, INDORE

u/s Section 274 sets in motion the penalty-\nproceeding. According to Ld. AR, the aforesaid notice issued by AO is very\nmuch vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c).\nThe Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has “concealed\nthe particulars of income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of income\",\nthe

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c). The AO has imposed penalty qua the addition made in assessment-order on account of dividend u/s 2(22)(e). The AO observed that the assessee was holding 49.20% shares in M/s Choudhary Innovative Business Pvt. Ltd. He further observed that M/s Choudhary Innovative Business Pvt. Ltd. had made advances of Rs. 35,00,000/- to assessee

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c). The AO has imposed penalty qua the addition made in assessment-order on account of dividend u/s 2(22)(e). The AO observed that the assessee was holding 49.20% shares in M/s Choudhary Innovative Business Pvt. Ltd. He further observed that M/s Choudhary Innovative Business Pvt. Ltd. had made advances of Rs. 35,00,000/- to assessee

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c). The AO has imposed penalty qua the addition made in assessment-order on account of dividend u/s 2(22)(e). The AO observed that the assessee was holding 49.20% shares in M/s Choudhary Innovative Business Pvt. Ltd. He further observed that M/s Choudhary Innovative Business Pvt. Ltd. had made advances of Rs. 35,00,000/- to assessee

VIJAY CHOUDHARY,ANDHERI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(2), INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

271(1)(c). The AO has imposed penalty qua the addition made in assessment-order on account of dividend u/s 2(22)(e). The AO observed that the assessee was holding 49.20% shares in M/s Choudhary Innovative Business Pvt. Ltd. He further observed that M/s Choudhary Innovative Business Pvt. Ltd. had made advances of Rs. 35,00,000/- to assessee

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

u/s 271(1)(c) is clearly mentioned\nin respective additions.\n\n10. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the\ncase-records including the show-cause notice and order of penalty made by\nAO in the light of decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. On perusal\nof the show-cause notice

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

u/s 271(1)(c) is clearly mentioned\nin respective additions.\n\n10. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the\ncase-records including the show-cause notice and order of penalty made by\nAO in the light of decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. On perusal\nof the show-cause notice

KESHAV KUMAR NACHANI,INDORE vs. DCIT-1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Accordingly, we are inclined to reject the condonation request and\nwe do so. Consequently, the appeal of AY 2010-11 is dismissed in\nlimine as being time-barred

u/s 271(1)(c) is clearly mentioned\nin respective additions.\n\n10. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the\ncase-records including the show-cause notice and order of penalty made by\nAO in the light of decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. On perusal\nof the show-cause notice

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANUPUR vs. JOINT COMMISIIONER OF INCOME TAX -OSD, CENTRAL-1, INDORE , INDORE

u/s 274 sets in motion the penalty-\nproceeding. According to Ld. AR, the aforesaid notice issued by AO is very\nmuch vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c).\nThe Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has \"concealed\nthe particulars of income\" or \"furnished inaccurate particulars of income\",\nthe AO is himself

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

35 of 42 M/s Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highways (India) Ltd. ITA Nos. 793 to 799/Ind/2019 & ITA Nos. 800 to 805/Ind/2019 - AY 2009-10 to 2015-16 short AIDPL) and in next financial year the appellant has accepted the cash loan of Rs. 3,66,25,000/- from M/s Agroh Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd (In short AIDPL) and on other hand

THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOLL HIGHWAY LTD., INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

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

35 of 42 M/s Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highways (India) Ltd. ITA Nos. 793 to 799/Ind/2019 & ITA Nos. 800 to 805/Ind/2019 - AY 2009-10 to 2015-16 short AIDPL) and in next financial year the appellant has accepted the cash loan of Rs. 3,66,25,000/- from M/s Agroh Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd (In short AIDPL) and on other hand