PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for sake of brevity). The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number CIT(A)-3 Bhopal/IT/10289/2016-17/139 dated 28.06.2024 of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2000-2001 and the Page

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, 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

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

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

36,00,000/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 30,00,000/- for AY 2014-15, on which provisions of section 269SS/T need to be invoked and shall be referred according to the JCIT (Central), Indore.” Then, Ld. AR submitted that in present case “the proceeding, in the course of which the action for the imposition of penalty has been

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

36,822/-. 5. Vide the penalty order dated 30.03.2022, penalty of Rs.2.50 lacs was imposed on the assessee u/s 271AAB(1) of the Act. 6. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. 7. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the surrender made was general and was not with respect

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

36 which are as under:-\n\"1. That the order made by the PCIT, Central, Bhopal u/s 263\nsetting aside the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) stating it to be\nerroneous and directing the Assessing Office to initiate penalty\nu/s 271AAC(1) on the surrendered income be held to be erroneous\nand be quashed.\n2. The appellant craves leave

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

36 DTR (SC) 449.\n7. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not\nconsidering the material fact that penalty proceedings are different from\nassessment proceedings and merely on the basis of certain finding in\nassessment proceedings, penalty u/s. Section 271

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

36,00,000/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 30,00,000/- for AY 2014-15, on which provisions of section 269SS/T need to be invoked and shall be referred according to the JCIT (Central), Indore.” Then, Ld. AR submitted that in present case “the proceeding, in the course of which the action for the imposition of penalty has been

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

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

36,00,000/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 30,00,000/- for AY 2014-15, on which provisions of section 269SS/T need to be invoked and shall be referred according to the JCIT (Central), Indore.” Then, Ld. AR submitted that in present case “the proceeding, in the course of which the action for the imposition of penalty has been

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

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

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

Appeals are allowed

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

36 are correct and there is no delay. The Bench directed Ld. DR to submit report of concerned authorities in this regard. Vide letter dated 10.04.2024, Ld. DR for revenue has filed a letter dated 08.04.2014 from the office of CIT(A), U-II, Indore admitting that although the impugned orders were “dispatched from this office on 05.04.2016, but could

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

Appeals are allowed

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

36 are correct and there is no delay. The Bench directed Ld. DR to submit report of concerned authorities in this regard. Vide letter dated 10.04.2024, Ld. DR for revenue has filed a letter dated 08.04.2014 from the office of CIT(A), U-II, Indore admitting that although the impugned orders were “dispatched from this office on 05.04.2016, but could

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

Appeals are allowed

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

36 are correct and there is no delay. The Bench directed Ld. DR to submit report of concerned authorities in this regard. Vide letter dated 10.04.2024, Ld. DR for revenue has filed a letter dated 08.04.2014 from the office of CIT(A), U-II, Indore admitting that although the impugned orders were “dispatched from this office on 05.04.2016, but could