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

u/s 271 (1)( c) on the ground that there was no satisfaction in the penalty order as well, as both the charges were reiterated in the penalty order. It is also contended that the penalty order is vague as on one hand Explanation 5A to section

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a speaking order. (iii) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of explanation 5A to section

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a speaking order. (iii) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of explanation 5A to section

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a speaking order. (iii) That, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of explanation 5A to section

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

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the Karnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section 274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was cancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) was further followed

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

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the Karnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section 274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was cancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) was further followed

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

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the Karnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section 274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was cancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) was further followed

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

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the Karnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section 274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was cancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) was further followed

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the\nKarnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section\n274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the\npenalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was\ncancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory\n(supra) was further

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Nacit-1(1),\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Assessee/Appellant)\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the\nKarnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section\n274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the\npenalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was\ncancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory\n(supra) was further

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\N\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\N\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing 19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement 07.

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the\nKarnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section\n274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the\npenalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was\ncancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory\n(supra) was further

SHRI KULWANT SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, INDORE

In the result, all the ix appeals as mentioned above are

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ /. सं . अ .

u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. The submissions filed by the assessee has been reproduced by the AO in the penalty order. The AO held that after insertion of Explanation 5A of Section

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\N\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Nacit-1(1),\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Nbhopal\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Assessee/Appellant)\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the\nKarnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section\n274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the\npenalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was\ncancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory\n(supra) was further

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the\nKarnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section\n274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the\npenalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was\ncancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory\n(supra) was further

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the\nKarnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section\n274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the\npenalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was\ncancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory\n(supra) was further

PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the\nKarnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section\n274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the\npenalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was\ncancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory\n(supra) was further

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, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\N19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N07.

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the\nKarnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section\n274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the\npenalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was\ncancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory\n(supra) was further

PREM CHAWLA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT SUDESH CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF I.TAX 1(1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals of the assessee are allowed mutatis mutandis

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani, Accountant\Nmember\Nand\Nshri Paresh M Joshimember\Nita Nos.673 To 679/Ind/2024\N Assessment Years: 2000-2001 To 2006-2007\Nprem Chawla,\Ng-2/161, Gulmohar\Ncolony,\Nbhopal\N(Assessee/Appellant)\Nacit-1(1),\Nbhopal\Nबनाम /\Nvs.\N(Revenue/Respondent)\Npan: Aaopc3494N\Nassessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar\Nrevenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing 19.03.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement 07.

5A to Section 271(1)(c), it was held by the\nKarnataka High Court that the show-cause notice under Section\n274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which the\npenalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty imposed was\ncancelled. The decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory\n(supra) was further