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

penalty order U/s 271(1)(c) dated 14/06/2019 & relevant quantum order U/s 153C / 143(3) dated 28/12/2018 are without

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

penalty order U/s 271(1)(c) dated 14/06/2019 & relevant quantum order U/s 153C / 143(3) dated 28/12/2018 are without

MR .AKSHAT DONERIA ,NOIDA vs. ITO 4(1) , AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case

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

penalty can be levied towards disallowance of expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. (C) Addition of Rs.10,54,363/- of sundry creditors/debtors. In this regard, he submitted that the addition was made u/s. 41(1) and not u/s. 68 of the Act to invoke the provisions of section 271

BLM HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c).\nParticulars of MAT credit furnished in the return of income cannot therefore\nbe said to be particulars of \"Income\" for the purpose of levying penalty u/s

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Since, the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Since, the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential

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

penalty order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty

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

penalty order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty

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

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

penalty order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty

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 Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 22.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, 1(1), Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. The assessee vide Ground No. 4 had raised a ground stating that the ld. AO in the penalty

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 Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 22.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, 1(1), Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. The assessee vide Ground No. 4 had raised a ground stating that the ld. AO in the penalty

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 Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 22.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, 1(1), Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. The assessee vide Ground No. 4 had raised a ground stating that the ld. AO in 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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing a penalty or Rs.2,13,400/- vide order

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing a penalty or Rs.2,13,400/- vide order

JAGGO,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Jaggo Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Sh. Indar H. No. 6, Azampur Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura Mathura, Mathura Pan : Ayopj8958J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 17.11.2025 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Assessee Is In This Appeal, Raising Following Grounds : “1. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Information/Explanation Along With The Documents During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Above Notice Was Issued Through Registered E-Mail Id & Fixed For Compliance On 26.02.2021, After Laps Of Considerable Time, The Assessing Officer Issued The Another Notice U/S 274 To The Assessee R.W.S 271(1)B) Of The Act Why Penalty U/S 271 Of The Act Should Not Be Initiated & Levied. In Compliance, The Assessee Not Submitted Any Reply. Accordingly, Assessing Officer Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-.

u/s 274 to the assessee r.w.s 271(1)b) of the Act why penalty u/s 271 of the Act should

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act@ 100% tax sought to be evaded i.e. Rs.1,68,789.which was sustained

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)

u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied by the AO u/s