deletion of penalty — 348 case laws

R P Wood Products Pvt Ltd, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Mahaveer Prasad Aggarwal Vs DCIT Central Circle Kota following the earlier decisions in the case of Ravi Mathur and Padam Chand Pungaliya deleted the penalty u/s271AAB of the Income Tax Act for defective notice u/s 274 of the Income tax Act where specific clause of the section 271AAB ... case for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct deletion of penalty levied in the present case amounting to Rs.5.65 crores. Ground of appeal No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed." Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench

R P Wood Products Private Limited, Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

Mahaveer Prasad Aggarwal Vs DCIT Central Circle Kota following the earlier decisions in the case of Ravi Mathur and Padam Chand Pungaliya deleted the penalty u/s271AAB of the Income Tax Act for defective notice u/s 274 of the Income tax Act where specific clause of the section 271AAB ... case for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct deletion of penalty levied in the present case amounting to Rs.5.65 crores. Ground of appeal No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed." Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench

Ghanshyam Tak, Naya Ghar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

Mahaveer Prasad Aggarwal Vs DCIT Central Circle Kota following the earlier decisions in the case of Ravi Mathur and Padam Chand Pungaliya deleted the penalty 13 Shri Ghanshyam Tak, Ajmer. u/s271AAB of the Income Tax Act for defective notice u/s 274 of the Income tax Act where specific clause ... case for levy of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct deletion of penalty levied in the present case amounting to Rs.5.65 crores. Ground of appeal No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed." Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. Director of Income Tax (Inv), Unit 7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1127/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 272ASection 273B

issued u/s 131 of the ACT and the provisions of section 272A(l)(c) are not attracted and AO be further directed to delete the penalty of Rs. 10,0007-. 5. Without prejudice to the above, since the Appellant has not acted deliberately in defiance of law nor was guilty ... compliance to the summons issued. The assessee also submitted that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay and therefore prayed for deletion of penalty. 5 ITA 1127/Mum/2023 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited 6. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that – “During the course

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajendra Rameshchandra Chaturvedi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 927/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat Is Quashed 2 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Instead Of Observing The Fact That The Department Had Challenged The Hon'Ble Itat Order Before The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court.”

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

NFAC, Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (C) for the A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of penalty of Rs.13,46,06,137/-. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under:- 2 Shri Rajendra Rameshchandra Chaturvedi “1. Whether ... correct in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer ws 271(1)(c) of the Act stating that the appeal against the assessment order before the ITAT is quashed 2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer