MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (ii) Section 271(1)(c) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (ii) Section 271(1)(c) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (ii) Section 271(1)(c) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (ii) Section 271(1)(c) deals with the imposition of penalty in cases where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of this section further elaborate on what it means to have concealed the particulars of income or to have furnished inaccurate

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

undisclosed income penalty is levied as per provisions of section 271AAA of the I.T. Act, which is calculated as under:- Income sought to be concealed Rs. 24,89,76,375/- 10% of the concealed Income Rs. 2,48,97,638/- Rounded off Rs. 2,48,97,700/- Accordingly penalty of Rs.2,48,97,700/- is imposed u/s 271

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

undisclosed income deleted during search and disallowance of claim u/s 36(V) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. As both the assesee(s) in these two appeals relates to the same group, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. We will first take

THE DCIT-CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. KALYAN TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE 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

undisclosed income deleted during search and disallowance of claim u/s 36(V) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. As both the assesee(s) in these two appeals relates to the same group, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. We will first take

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

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

u/s Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 271(1)(c)/271AAA of the Act were initiated on the undisclosed income offered to tax by the group concerns/individuals. In the instant 12 appeals the assessee has challenged the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the following penalties

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

u/s Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 271(1)(c)/271AAA of the Act were initiated on the undisclosed income offered to tax by the group concerns/individuals. In the instant 12 appeals the assessee has challenged the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the following penalties

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

u/s Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. 271(1)(c)/271AAA of the Act were initiated on the undisclosed income offered to tax by the group concerns/individuals. In the instant 12 appeals the assessee has challenged the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the following penalties

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and not under the purview of section 271AAA 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. 6,25,000/- as levied under section 271AAA

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and not under the purview of section 271AAA 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. 6,25,000/- as levied under section 271AAA

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

Appeal is allowed

penalty on\nundisclosed income where the proceedings u/s 132 of the Act is initiated,\nand on the other hand the sub-section (2) puts an embargo on imposing of\npenalty u/s 270A and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on such undisclosed

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

income on which penalty for concealment is not imposable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals)-3, erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition of Rs.4,29,875/- being undisclosed

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

income on which penalty for concealment is not imposable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals)-3, erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition of Rs.4,29,875/- being undisclosed

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

income on which penalty for concealment is not imposable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals)-3, erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition of Rs.4,29,875/- being undisclosed

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

income on which penalty for concealment is not imposable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals)-3, erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the addition of Rs.4,29,875/- being undisclosed

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

undisclosed sources at Rs.40,00,000/-, 5,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- with the income returned at Rs.12,93,110/- thus assessing the total income at Rs.63,93,110/- Subsequently penalty proceedings u/s 271