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

271(1)(c) of the Act, it does not contain the ingredients of section 271AAB of the Act. Under these facts the notice is improper and is not in accordance with requirement of law. The assessing officer is expected to make his direction clear as to which clause of section 271AAB of the Act, he wishes to invoke. There

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 271 (l)(c) was issued to the assessee on 22.01.2014 asking as to why penalty should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. The date of hearing was fixed on 29.01.2014. " It can this be seen that charge (i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was learly

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, R-5 (PRESENT AO: DCIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 271 (l)(c) was issued to the assessee on 22.01.2014 asking as to why penalty should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. The date of hearing was fixed on 29.01.2014. " It can this be seen that charge (i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was learly

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 5(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 271 (l)(c) was issued to the assessee on 22.01.2014 asking as to why penalty should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. The date of hearing was fixed on 29.01.2014. " It can this be seen that charge (i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was learly

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT-2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 271 (l)(c) was issued to the assessee on 22.01.2014 asking as to why penalty should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. The date of hearing was fixed on 29.01.2014. " It can this be seen that charge (i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was learly

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS AND FABRICS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT- RANGE-5, INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 271 (l)(c) was issued to the assessee on 22.01.2014 asking as to why penalty should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. The date of hearing was fixed on 29.01.2014. " It can this be seen that charge (i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was learly

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 271 (l)(c) was issued to the assessee on 22.01.2014 asking as to why penalty should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. The date of hearing was fixed on 29.01.2014. " It can this be seen that charge (i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was learly

M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08

u/s 271 (l)(c) was issued to the assessee on 22.01.2014 asking as to why penalty should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act. The date of hearing was fixed on 29.01.2014. " It can this be seen that charge (i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was learly

SHRI VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

u/s 133A during the course of survey proceedings. Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the same while disposing the appeal. [PB 11- 23] 7. From the assessment order, the additions made are without reference to any specific section under which they are made. It merely states - "Payments made out of undisclosed sources". [AO Para 7] 8. Even

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

u/s 292BB of the Act. Therefore, we hereby quash the penalty order.” [Emphasis Supplied] 1.4.4] The Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri R. Elangovan [ITA No. 1199/CHNY/2017] has categorically held that: “5…………..It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall

SMT. SARITA CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section assessee Year order of order of under CIT(A)_1 ACIT-1(2) which passed Late Smt. 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C Sudesh 2005-06 r.w.s. Chawla and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Prem Chawla 2000-01 to 30.03.2015 19.03.2013 153C 2005-06 r.w.s. and 143(3) 2006-07 143(3) Smt. Sarita

SHRI PRAGNESH NEEMA ,INDORE vs. ACIT 3(1) , INDORE

In the result appeals of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Pragnesh Neema, Acit 3(1), 61/1, Puja Vila, Lal Bag, Vs. Indore Kesar Bag Road, Bunglow No.8, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Abzpn8695E Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur, Cas Date Of Hearing 09.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 11.10.2019 O R D E R

68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits would not automatically give rise to imposition of penalty under s. 271 (1 )( c). 6.That, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO qua the claim of deduction for MCX expenses, without considering

RAM BABU SINGH,BIHAR vs. THE ITO-2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ram Babu Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Near Gayatri Mandir, 2(1), बनाम/ Saharsa, Bhopal Vs. Bihar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cufps2957D Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

68 to 69D in assessment-order. We re-produce below the relevant paras of first two decisions quoted by Ld. AR: ITAT, Jaipur in ACIT Vs. Sudesh Kumar Gupta (2020) 117 taxmann.com 178: “11. In the instant case, as we have noted above, the return of income so filed has been accepted by the AO without making any adjustment/variation

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SMT. SAROJ THAKUR, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14

68 of the Act. However since the loans were taken in cash penalty u/s 271D of the Act was initiated and subsequently levied for the contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. 12. The penalty u/s 271D of the Act is attracted if the assessee fails to comply with the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act which

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

u/s. 274 (1). Hence, the order be cancelled. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, it be held that neither the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and therefore, the levy of penalty is unjustified and unlawful and , therefore, be cancelled. 6. That

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. (b) As regards the break up of income of Rs. 41,07,848/-, complete details were filed before the Ld. A.O with the computation of income. In the show cause notice issued by Ld. A.O he himself has referred to the interest income received by the assessee on the hundis which form