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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income

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

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

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

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

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

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

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

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

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

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

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

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

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

Section 271(1)(c) was issued without striking either of two charges which is reproduced as : “* have concealed the particulars of your income or …… “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” In this regards it is submitted that the show cause notice is not a mere formality but it has a definite purpose to make the assessee aware of the exact charges

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and not under the purview of section 271AAB 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. 6,83,498/- as levied under section 271AAB

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

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

u/s 271 AAB of the Act may be levied @ 70/ 20/'30% since the assessee falls in Clauses (a)/(b)/(c) of section 271AAB of the Act. He should have further mentioned that as the assessee's case falls under Clause - C of section 271AAB of the Act, why he should not be visited by the penalty

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

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

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

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

271(1)(c) and on appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court exonerated assessee from penalty. The relevant portion of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order is re-produced below: “5. Even though the Statement indicated that the provision towards payment of gratuity was not allowable, the assessee claimed a deduction thereon in its return of income. On the basis

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

271(1)(c) and on appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court exonerated assessee from penalty. The relevant portion of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order is re-produced below: “5. Even though the Statement indicated that the provision towards payment of gratuity was not allowable, the assessee claimed a deduction thereon in its return of income. On the basis

MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

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

70,64,442/-. That the assessee had not furnished any details regarding the source of investment in the said share trading. No ITR is filed, Page 2 of 25 MALA DHIRENDRA SINGH ITA No. 790&791/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2014-15 hence the assessee has not shown above transaction in the ROI. 2.3 That the case was reopened u/s 147 and a notice u/s