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

u/s 271(l)(c) cannot be levied. It is submitted that it be so held now.” 16. This, again, is not the issue before us. In “K.P. Madhusudanan” (supra), the Assessing Officer noted that the 17. demand draft and telegraphic transfer were not entered by the assessee in its cash book on the dates on which the same were purchased

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

u/s. 271 would be warranted. In “HCIL Kalindee Arsspl” (supra), penalty under section 18. 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 prescribed certificate

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. Subsequent to finalization of assessment order, the assessee had moved an application u/s 154 of the Act claiming rectification on account of depreciation which was allowed by the AO, as a result of which, income was re-computed at Rs.22,34,510/- in place of Rs.40

M/S KUNJ POWER PROJECTS PVT.LTD,MATHURA vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS) , KANPUR, KANPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 276C of the Act. Hon'ble\nApex Court in the case of US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT\n(2023) 453 ITR 644 (SC) had analysed the provisions of section 271C of\nthe Act and categorically held that the said section does not impose\npenalty for the default of not depositing TDS deduction to the\nGovernment account. Relevant

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 260/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under : 3. At the very outset, it is noted that both these appeals were filed

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 260/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under : 3. At the very outset, it is noted that both these appeals were filed

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961. That the appellate order dated 30th March, 2016 passed by the 7. learned CIT(A)-I, Agra is against the law and facts of the assessee’s case. The appellant also seeks permission to modify and/or adduce any other ground/grounds of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961. That the appellate order dated 30th March, 2016 passed by the 7. learned CIT(A)-I, Agra is against the law and facts of the assessee’s case. The appellant also seeks permission to modify and/or adduce any other ground/grounds of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require

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)

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, this

ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.52/Agr/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Agarwal Acit, 6/26, Barah Bhai Ki Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Gali, Belanganj, Agra-282002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Abipa7741F (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction without having any verification of the evidences placed on record by the assessee. Therefore, we set aside this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to make necessary verification of the claim, after examining the details and evidence filed by the assessee in this regard. The assessee is also directed to file all the necessary evidence

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.52/Agr/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Agarwal Acit, 6/26, Barah Bhai Ki Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Gali, Belanganj, Agra-282002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Abipa7741F (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction without having any verification of the evidences placed on record by the assessee. Therefore, we set aside this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to make necessary verification of the claim, after examining the details and evidence filed by the assessee in this regard. The assessee is also directed to file all the necessary evidence

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

deduction on account of expenditure to the extent of 50% of the gross receipts whereas the claim as made was allowable in full. In any case only as an alternative submission the disallowance sustained was on the higher side”. 5. The facts are that the AO, in the assessment order, added certain credit entries appearing in the assessee’s bank

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

deduction on account of expenditure to the extent of 50% of the gross receipts whereas the claim as made was allowable in full. In any case only as an alternative submission the disallowance sustained was on the higher side”. 5. The facts are that the AO, in the assessment order, added certain credit entries appearing in the assessee’s bank

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals