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 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

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

section 271(1)(c). (Ram Kumar Yadav) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Indore 19. From going through the above notice it is well evident that in the notice the specific charge/limb u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not mentioned. The Ld. A.O has not striked off one of the charge which is not relevant to the assessee

THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE vs. M/S KETI CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) 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

section 271(1)(c). (Ram Kumar Yadav) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Indore 19. From going through the above notice it is well evident that in the notice the specific charge/limb u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not mentioned. The Ld. A.O has not striked off one of the charge which is not relevant to the assessee

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

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

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 dismissed the appeal of revenue by observing as under: “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

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

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

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 dismissed the appeal of revenue by observing as under: “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

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

35,317/- to ESI and PF. Respectfully following the binding precedent cited above in paras 23 to 26 in ITA No.961/Ind/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12, we direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year

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

35,317/- to ESI and PF. Respectfully following the binding precedent cited above in paras 23 to 26 in ITA No.961/Ind/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12, we direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year

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

35,317/- to ESI and PF. Respectfully following the binding precedent cited above in paras 23 to 26 in ITA No.961/Ind/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12, we direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year

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

35,317/- to ESI and PF. Respectfully following the binding precedent cited above in paras 23 to 26 in ITA No.961/Ind/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12, we direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year

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

35,317/- to ESI and PF. Respectfully following the binding precedent cited above in paras 23 to 26 in ITA No.961/Ind/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12, we direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year

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

35,317/- to ESI and PF. Respectfully following the binding precedent cited above in paras 23 to 26 in ITA No.961/Ind/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12, we direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year

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

35,317/- to ESI and PF. Respectfully following the binding precedent cited above in paras 23 to 26 in ITA No.961/Ind/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12, we direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance. 36. Now coming to the appeals filed in penalty proceedings filed by the assessee, we take up appeal in ITA No.752/Ind/2016 for the assessment year

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the other grounds raised in these 9 appeals become infructuous. 15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. In these appeals, the following common grounds have been taken by the assessee :- “(i) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the other grounds raised in these 9 appeals become infructuous. 15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. In these appeals, the following common grounds have been taken by the assessee :- “(i) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the other grounds raised in these 9 appeals become infructuous. 15. Now we take up the remaining three appeals pertaining to penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. In these appeals, the following common grounds have been taken by the assessee :- “(i) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed

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