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

10. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The issue is as to whether, as contended by the assessee, issuance of a notice under section 274 of the Act is a prerequisite sine qua non for the levy of concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c), or whether it is not so, the initiation of 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

10 & ITA No.193/Agra/2017 income of the assessee, with its consent. It was further noticed that another sum of Rs. 1 Lakh had been paid under the head "Income Tax Paid", in the above referred Schedule relating to Administrative and other Expenses. The assessee claimed that due to oversight, this amount was not added back in the Computation of Income. Hence

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

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 in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

M/S RAMESHTH CONSTRUCTION ,JHANSI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(3)(1) , JHANSI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

26,203 under section 271(1)(c) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 worked out on these additions should\nhave been deleted/reduced.\n3.That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case the\naddition/disallowance per se cannot mean that the appellant has\nconcealed and/or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.\nAccordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

SH. MANOJ AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O.-2(2), GWALIOR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is required to be failed and accordingly we dismiss both the appeals

271(1)(b) were also issued to the assessee. 4. Thereafter, a Notice under section 142(1) along with a detailed Questionnaire was issued to the assessee fixing compliance on 28.11.2011. In response to Assessee along with his Chartered Accountant appeared before the AO on 12.12.2011, filed written reply along with Audit Report offering a sum of Rs14

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)

26 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, this request is accepted. Necessary changes in the record be made, as such. This appeal has been filed against the CIT(A)’s order dated 18.01.2013, 4. deciding the appeal an ex parte qua the assessee, partly allowing it. The following Grounds of appeal have been raised: 3 &ITA No. 146/Agra/2017 “That

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)

26 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, this request is accepted. Necessary changes in the record be made, as such. This appeal has been filed against the CIT(A)’s order dated 18.01.2013, 4. deciding the appeal an ex parte qua the assessee, partly allowing it. The following Grounds of appeal have been raised: 3 &ITA No. 146/Agra/2017 “That

MANISH KUMAR CHATURVEDI,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manish Kumar Chaturvedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1882, Shivaji Nagar, Jhansic Ward-2(3)(2), 284001 Jhansi 284 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Akkpc5294Q Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act and under section 270A(2) (b) and 271F of the Act is unwarranted. Manish Kumar Chaturvedi 9. That the appellate order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against the law and facts of the appellant's case.” 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance

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

10. In Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. AkshOptifibre Ltd. [2005] 7 SCC 234, the Supreme Court has observed that if the requirements of a statute which prescribes the manner in which something is to be done are expressed in negative language, that is to say, if the statute enacts that it shall be done in such a manner

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

10. In Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. AkshOptifibre Ltd. [2005] 7 SCC 234, the Supreme Court has observed that if the requirements of a statute which prescribes the manner in which something is to be done are expressed in negative language, that is to say, if the statute enacts that it shall be done in such a manner

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

10. In Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. AkshOptifibre Ltd. [2005] 7 SCC 234, the Supreme Court has observed that if the requirements of a statute which prescribes the manner in which something is to be done are expressed in negative language, that is to say, if the statute enacts that it shall be done in such a manner