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

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

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

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

Appeals are allowed

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

iii) Date on which the Competent Officer issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 274 – 29.10.2018 (iv) Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed by Ld. CIT(A), re-produced in earlier para. Ld. AR explained that there

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

Appeals are allowed

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

iii) Date on which the Competent Officer issued show-cause notice to assessee u/s 274 – 29.10.2018 (iv) Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed by Ld. CIT(A), re-produced in earlier para. Ld. AR explained that there

M/S. FLEXITUFF INTERNATIONAL LTD.,DHAR vs. DY. CIT 1(1), INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2012-13

36 pages), paper book dated 14.07.2021 (71 pages) and the decision of Coordinate Bench Bangalore in the case of Kotarki Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT in ITANo.3395/Bang/2018 dated 31.08.2021 submitted that in view of the circular No.25/2015 issued by CBDT dated 31st December 2015, for cases prior to A.Y. 2016-17, penalty u/s 271(1

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

iii)\nAgainst quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters\nin first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/\ndisallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still\naggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT,\nIndore in IT(SS)A No. 175 to 177/Ind/2017. The ITAT disposed of\nthose appeals through a consolidated order

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE,INDORE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN , INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

iii) Against quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/ disallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT, Indore in IT(SS)A No. 175 to 177/Ind/2017. The ITAT disposed of those appeals through a consolidated order

M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

iii) Against quantum-assessments so made, the assessee carried matters in first-appeals before CIT(A) and contested the additions/ disallowances made by AO. The CIT(A) granted part-relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee carried matters in next appeals before ITAT, Indore in IT(SS)A No. 175 to 177/Ind/2017. The ITAT disposed of those appeals through a consolidated order

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded.]]” 9. The limitation for passing the order imposing penalty under chapter- XXI has been provided by considering all possible situation where the assessment order or other order is subject matter of appeal

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

In the result, appeal for A

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

iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded.]]” 9. The limitation for passing the order imposing penalty under chapter- XXI has been provided by considering all possible situation where the assessment order or other order is subject matter of appeal

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

iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded.]]” 9. The limitation for passing the order imposing penalty under chapter- XXI has been provided by considering all possible situation where the assessment order or other order is subject matter of appeal

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

36 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 that addition in dispute has been made in the assessment completed u/s153A. The assessee raised this issue before the ld CIT(A), however, the ld CIT(A) rejected the arguments of the assessee observing

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

36 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 that addition in dispute has been made in the assessment completed u/s153A. The assessee raised this issue before the ld CIT(A), however, the ld CIT(A) rejected the arguments of the assessee observing

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

36 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 that addition in dispute has been made in the assessment completed u/s153A. The assessee raised this issue before the ld CIT(A), however, the ld CIT(A) rejected the arguments of the assessee observing

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

36 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 that addition in dispute has been made in the assessment completed u/s153A. The assessee raised this issue before the ld CIT(A), however, the ld CIT(A) rejected the arguments of the assessee observing