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 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

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

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

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 spell 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

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

M/S. STI (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of Rs.12,21,83,859/- by invoking the explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2010-11. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the penalty

M/S AKSHAY SHAKTI SHIKSHA AVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Bleita Nos. 518 To 520/Ind/2016 A.Ys. 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

penalty levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) is upheld.” Akshay Shakti Shiksha ITA Nos.518,519 & 520/Ind/2016 We further note that the search in the case of the assessee was conducted on 23.7.2009 and this date falls after the first day of June, 2007 as provided in Explanation 5A to section

M/S AKSHAY SHAKTI SHIKSHA AVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Bleita Nos. 518 To 520/Ind/2016 A.Ys. 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

penalty levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) is upheld.” Akshay Shakti Shiksha ITA Nos.518,519 & 520/Ind/2016 We further note that the search in the case of the assessee was conducted on 23.7.2009 and this date falls after the first day of June, 2007 as provided in Explanation 5A to section

M/S AKSHAY SHAKTI SHIKSHA AVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Bleita Nos. 518 To 520/Ind/2016 A.Ys. 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11

penalty levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) is upheld.” Akshay Shakti Shiksha ITA Nos.518,519 & 520/Ind/2016 We further note that the search in the case of the assessee was conducted on 23.7.2009 and this date falls after the first day of June, 2007 as provided in Explanation 5A to section

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

section 271(1)(c) of the Act read with explanation 5A shall be applicable which requires that search has to be conducted on order after 1.6.2007; assessee is found to be owner of inter alia, any income were shown in the books/documents/transactions; the assessee claims that such entry in books represents his income and due date for filing return

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

section 271(1)(c) of the Act read with explanation 5A shall be applicable which requires that search has to be conducted on order after 1.6.2007; assessee is found to be owner of inter alia, any income were shown in the books/documents/transactions; the assessee claims that such entry in books represents his income and due date for filing return

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

section 271(1)(c) of the Act read with explanation 5A shall be applicable which requires that search has to be conducted on order after 1.6.2007; assessee is found to be owner of inter alia, any income were shown in the books/documents/transactions; the assessee claims that such entry in books represents his income and due date for filing return

SHRI ARUN KUMAR LILA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT -1(2), BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

section 271(1)(c) of the Act read with explanation 5A shall be applicable which requires that search has to be conducted on order after 1.6.2007; assessee is found to be owner of inter alia, any income were shown in the books/documents/transactions; the assessee claims that such entry in books represents his income and due date for filing return