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

section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty

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

section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty

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

section 271(1)(c), following the decision of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton (Supra), it has been held that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spell out Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty

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

73 taxman.com 248 (SC) / dated 23.11.2015 (ITA 380/2015), the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the revenue by observing that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 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

73 taxman.com 248 (SC) / dated 23.11.2015 (ITA 380/2015), the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the revenue by observing that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 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

73 taxman.com 248 (SC) / dated 23.11.2015 (ITA 380/2015), the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the revenue by observing that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 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

73 taxman.com 248 (SC) / dated 23.11.2015 (ITA 380/2015), the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the revenue by observing that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271

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

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

271. 13. Sub-section (2) of section 271AAA thus while retaining the other requirements of avoiding penalty as provided in clause (ii) of Explanation 5 has now introduced an additional requirement of the assessee having to substantiate the manner in which, the undisclosed income was derived. It is this requirement which the counsel for the Revenue would place great emphasis

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

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

271. 13. Sub-section (2) of section 271AAA thus while retaining the other requirements of avoiding penalty as provided in clause (ii) of Explanation 5 has now introduced an additional requirement of the assessee having to substantiate the manner in which, the undisclosed income was derived. It is this requirement which the counsel for the Revenue would place great emphasis

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

73 taxman.com 248 (SC) / dated 23.11.2015 (ITA 380/2015), the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the revenue by observing that the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

73,905/- declared in the income tax return filed on 31.10.2005. Case selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed on 19.12.2007. After making 3 STI(India) Ltd. ITANo.42/Ind/2017 various disallowances at Rs.6,13,67,779/- income assessed at Rs.13,16,16,126/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing

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) and section 271AA. Thus, we find that the charge against which the penalty is to be levied was not specific. It is now a settled proposition that when the charge itself is not a specific and is vague, penalty cannot be levied. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Ashok

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

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

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M P STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

73,533/- + Garden Rs. 20,88,183/-). We re-produce below the entire assessment-order passed by AO, out of which Para 4 is related to the impugned disallowance: Page 2 of 13 M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited ITA Nos. 772 to 774/Ind/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15 Page 3 of 13 M.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Limited