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

Income Tax(A)-II,Agra dated 16.07.2014 wherein theassessee haschallenged the action of the CIT(A) confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at 100 % by reducing it from 200% as levied by the AO. 2. At the time of hearing, vide application dated 15/01/2018, the assessee has taken an additional

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

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

additions so made are deemed to be concealed income, and therefore, the penalty provisions are attracted. The case has no application to the points and controversy under question. In the case of “Balasubramaniam” (supra), no issue of validity 21. of penalty notice was under consideration. 22. In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra) penalty order was sustained

SMT. ASHA RANI GUPTA,AGRA vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

income of Rs.37,83,100/- after making addition of Rs.1,72,181/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition. This addition has further been confirmed by Tribunal in ITA 22/Agra/2013. The Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of Rs. 52,000/- u/s 271

M/S NARESH KATARE, CONTRACTOR,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, GWALIOR

In the result, appeals of the assessee is allowed

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

271(l)(c) where the addition was also sustained by the Hon'ble ITAT by applying the net profit rate of 3%. The penalty so imposed was cancelled by the CIT (Appeals) and the order of CIT (Appeals) cancelling the penalty was sustained by ITAT, Agra Bench. In Assessment Year 2009-10, in the present year, the penalty was imposed

SH. GIRRAJ KISHORE AGARWAL, HUF,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

addition of Rs.14,29,296/- to the extent of the difference between revised return income and the original return income. The Assessing Officer has mentioned in the assessment order that the penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

income of Rs.5,32,240/-, by making disallowance of Rs.39,779/- towards share purchase expenses, adhoc disallowance of various other expenses amounting to Rs.50,000/- and addition of Rs.97,31,000/- u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Based on the above additions, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty of Rs.83,45,158/- u/s. 271

SH SURESH CHAND AGARWAL,AGRA vs. ACIT 4(1), AGRA

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

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

additional income of the assessee in view of order of ITAT Agra, (Supra) in the assessee’s own case. 9. The ld CIT(A) has discussed that the ITAT, Agra has deleted the amount of Rs.14 lac in AY 2009-10 stating to be conditional surrendered income because in that assessment year, detailed calculation of income of Rs.36

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

u/s. 271(1)(c) for the concealment of particulars of income and after taking assessee’s response into consideration imposed penalty of Rs. 39,01,450/- due to concealment of income, vide penalty order dated 29.09.2023. Meantime, the tribunal, vide order dated 10.02.2025 passed in ITA 148/Agr/2022, restricted the impugned addition

YASH KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

271(1)(c) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section 274 whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income," thereby violating principles laid down in various judicial precedents of hon'ble court. 5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged

YASH KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

271(1)(c) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section 274 whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income," thereby violating principles laid down in various judicial precedents of hon'ble court. 5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged

NALANDA BUILDERS &DVELOPERS I P LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty has been imposed on undisclosed amount which represents the undisclosed income on which addition has been made in the assessment u/s 153A/143(3). Here, it is relevant to reproduce sub section 1(b) of section 271

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 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

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs.9,47,990/- against the assessee. The penalty so imposed by the AO was consequential to the addition of Rs.32,30,790/- made by the AO to the income

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs.9,47,990/- against the assessee. The penalty so imposed by the AO was consequential to the addition of Rs.32,30,790/- made by the AO to the income