MS/ BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES,AGRA vs. THE A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

271(l)(c) imposed on disallowance made under section 80IA, which was deleted by the ITAT on the ground that the claim raised under section 80IA, as was disallowed in quantum proceedings, was certified to be correct by the Chartered Accountant, who furnished the I.T.A No. 378/Agra/2014 11 prescribed certificate in Form No.10CCB. The Hon'ble High Court held that

SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(l)(c) 19. imposed on disallowance made under section 80IA, which was deleted by the ITAT on the ground that the claim raised under section 80IA, as was disallowed in quantum proceedings, was certified to be correct by the Chartered Accountant, who furnished the prescribed certificate in Form No.10CCB. The Hon'ble High Court held that mere filing

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

disallowances made in the assessment order. 6. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the major addition of Rs.97,31,000/- made under section 56(2)(vii) of the 'Act' being on account of deeming fiction cannot be a valid foundation for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). Though this decision was rendered in the context of penalty under section 271(1)(c

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). Though this decision was rendered in the context of penalty under section 271(1)(c

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). Though this decision was rendered in the context of penalty under section 271(1)(c

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 271 (1)(c). The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant having furnished all the material facts, legally required, the order as passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly erroneous and illegal in the eyes of law. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred both in law and on facts in relying upon the various

DIXIT RICE MILL ,AURAIYA vs. DCIT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed under section 36. 6. It is seen that in the various grounds taken by the assessee he is trying to argue case by filing evidences as is done during scrutiny assessments and not u/s143(1) under centralized computerized processing. In view of the procedures that exist for computerized processing, assessee is advised to first file a rectification application online

D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S PNC INFRATECH LTD., AGRA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12

section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.2,25,00,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 20.06.2019, holding the assessee to have concealed and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. He further quotes (2024) 169 taxmann.com 16 (Delhi) Pawan Kumar Jaggi vs. ACIT to buttress the point that even in case of adhoc disallowances

M/S MISS HILL EDUCATION SOCIETY,GWALIOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 2. The ld. Counsel states as at the bar that ground no. 3 is not pressed. Rejected as not pressed. 3. Regarding ground nos. 1 and 2, the facts are that the AO rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act, at the time of filing of return

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO-2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the observation as above

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

1. Tha the penalty imposed and sustained by the C.I.T. (A) at Rs. 354013/- is illegal and arbitrary. 2. That the penalty imposed and sustained at Rs. 354013/- by the C.I.T. (A) on the basis of illegal notice issued u/s 271(l)(c) which did not specify the particular limb of sec. 271(l)(c) of the Act i.e. whether

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41,98,630/-. Subsequently

TOMAR & BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

271(1)(c) is attracted on disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. With regard to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards sundry creditors/debtors, we observe that the Assessing Officer has not quoted the relevant section

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2,, AGRA vs. M/S SAKSHI TAIRI & CHHAYA BATTAD, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SUNIL KUMAR MITTAL & MAMTA MITTAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S RAKESH SHIVHARE & NISHA MITTAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S VANDANA JAIN & RAMA BANSAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SHYAM SUNDER & MANISH TAORI, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs