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 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O.” 2.15 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O” preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order dated 28.06.2024” reduced the penalty amount u/s 271

PREM 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 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O.” 2.15 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O” preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order dated 28.06.2024” reduced the penalty amount u/s 271

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O.” 2.15 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O” preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order dated 28.06.2024” reduced the penalty amount u/s 271

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said penalty order is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O.” 2.15 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order of Ld. A.O” preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by “impugned order dated 28.06.2024” reduced the penalty amount u/s 271

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

50,00,000/- which was admitted by the assessee during statement on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act. In view of the provisions of section 271AAB of the Act, I am satisfied that penalty proceedings must be initiated for the amount of disclosure made u/s 132(4) of the Act. Hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are hereby initiated

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

50,00,000/- which was admitted by the assessee during statement on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act. In view of the provisions of section 271AAB of the Act, I am satisfied that penalty proceedings must be initiated for the amount of disclosure made u/s 132(4) of the Act. Hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are hereby initiated

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

50,00,000/- which was admitted by the assessee during statement on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act. In view of the provisions of section 271AAB of the Act, I am satisfied that penalty proceedings must be initiated for the amount of disclosure made u/s 132(4) of the Act. Hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are hereby initiated

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

50,00,000/- which was admitted by the assessee during statement on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act. In view of the provisions of section 271AAB of the Act, I am satisfied that penalty proceedings must be initiated for the amount of disclosure made u/s 132(4) of the Act. Hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are hereby initiated

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and not under the purview of section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The show cause notice thus suffers from a fatal error which is not curable under section 292BB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and henceforth, penalty of Rs. 6,25,000/- as levied under section 271AAA

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and not under the purview of section 271AAA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The show cause notice thus suffers from a fatal error which is not curable under section 292BB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and henceforth, penalty of Rs. 6,25,000/- as levied under section 271AAA

DR. BRAJBALA TIWARI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, INDORE

In the result the legal ground of the assessee in for years

Bench: Hon'Ble’Ble Shri Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble’Ble Shri Manish Borad

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 50,000/-, Rs.2,10,000/- and Rs.2,60,000/-. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty

DR. BRAJBALA TIWARI,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, INDORE

In the result the legal ground of the assessee in for years

Bench: Hon'Ble’Ble Shri Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble’Ble Shri Manish Borad

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 50,000/-, Rs.2,10,000/- and Rs.2,60,000/-. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty

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

50,00,000/- for AY 2011-12, Rs. 3,36,00,000/- 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

SHRI USMAN KHAN,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.16,50,000/- and Rs.36,70,000/-. Usman Khan ITA No.522 & 523/Ind/2016 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty

SHRI USMAN KHAN,GWALIOR vs. THE DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.16,50,000/- and Rs.36,70,000/-. Usman Khan ITA No.522 & 523/Ind/2016 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty

THE ACIT -4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI MUKESH SANGLA, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2010-11 Acit-4(1), Shri Mukesh Sangla, Indore बनाम/ Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Anaps5579F

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,77,60,000/- levied by the AO on the additional income offered by the assessee in the return filed u/s 153A by invoking the deeming provision of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c). We find that after the search, the assessee prepared a cash flow statement and offered additional income

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2009 whereas substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. When the quantum issue came up before the Tribunal, protective addition in the hands of the assessee was confirmed as substantive addition. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2009 whereas substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee’s father, Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. When the quantum issue came up before the Tribunal, protective addition in the hands of the assessee was confirmed as substantive addition. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271