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, 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

2 - Through these ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 50,00,0001- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and also the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and also the penalty show cause notice issued u/s 274. It is seen that the appellant filed its return

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

2 - Through these ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 50,00,0001- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and also the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and also the penalty show cause notice issued u/s 274. It is seen that the appellant filed its return

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

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

271. 13. Sub-section (2) of section 271AAA thus while retaining the other requirements of avoiding penalty as provided in clause (ii) of Explanation 5 has now introduced an additional requirement of the assessee having to substantiate the manner in which, the undisclosed income was derived. It is this requirement which the counsel for the Revenue would place great emphasis

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

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

271. 13. Sub-section (2) of section 271AAA thus while retaining the other requirements of avoiding penalty as provided in clause (ii) of Explanation 5 has now introduced an additional requirement of the assessee having to substantiate the manner in which, the undisclosed income was derived. It is this requirement which the counsel for the Revenue would place great emphasis

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 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 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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,35,317/- on account of “Delayed payment of Employee contribution to ESI and PF.” 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

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

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