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

u/s 271(1)(c) which has to be met by him. Therefore, considering the observation of the AO in the assessment order alongside his action of non striking off the irrelevant clause in the notice renders the notice non complying with the principles of natural justice and thus deleted the penalty

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(1)(c) which has to be met by him. I.T.A No. 192/Agra/2017 15 & ITA No.193/Agra/2017 Therefore, considering the observation of the AO in the assessment order alongside his action of non striking off the irrelevant clause in the notice renders the notice non complying with the principles of natural justice and thus deleted the penalty

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for concealment of income while the penalty is imposed for concealment of income. 10. Having understood that the two expressions have different connotations, we have recently decided this issue in the case of Sachin Arora vs. ITO in ITA No. 118/Agra/2015. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

SARIF,JALESAR ETAH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1) , ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

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

natural justice. The appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 6 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 ITA No. 464/Agr/2025: 14. This appeal challenges the sustenance of penalty imposed u/s. 271

SARIF,JALESAR, ETAH vs. ASSESSIN OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), DINESH NAGAR ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

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

natural justice. The appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 6 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 ITA No. 464/Agr/2025: 14. This appeal challenges the sustenance of penalty imposed u/s. 271

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

natural justice, particularly when the appeal in respect of quantum is pending before Hon'ble ITAT, penalty imposed by AO and enhanced by the CIT (Appeals) is liable to be cancelled. 5. That the appellate order dated 15.02.2017 is bad in law, liable to be set aside. 2. The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 15.02.2017 had confirmed the penalty

JAGBEER SINGH KUSHWAH,MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act imposing a penalty or Rs.2,13,400/- vide order dated 30.05.2018 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the addition made and penalty imposed by the learned Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s both first appeals. 4. We have perused the records and heard learned representatives

JAGBEER SINGH KUSHWAH,MADHYA PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(2) GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act imposing a penalty or Rs.2,13,400/- vide order dated 30.05.2018 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the addition made and penalty imposed by the learned Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s both first appeals. 4. We have perused the records and heard learned representatives

LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

SAURABH AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD,MATHURA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

WASIM KHAN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHIVPURI

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) without affording the appellant an adequate opportunity to present its case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Also during the appeal proceedings only one Notice of 7 days' time limit was served on 06-11-2024 on Mail id of the assessee and no physical copy of the Notice was served