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 of the said Order. Xerox copy of the Hon’ble ITAT order is enclosed. (APB-79-92) “Suvaprasanan ACIT”, 40. In Bhatacharya vs. ITA No. 1303/Kol/2010. (Kol) vide Order dated 06-11-2015 deleted penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on the ground of “No Satisfaction” recorded in the assessment order and Notice being issued on both

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,, 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

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, 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

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

section 271 AAB (1)(c ) are clearly attracted and opportunity was given to the appellant by issuing of notice for enhancement on 19/01/2017. The date of hearing was fixed for 30/01/2017. However, non- appeared and only adjournment letter was sent. Next date of hearing was fixed for16.02.2017. None attended on this1 date also. Thus, it is clear that appellant

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

46,720/-. Subsequently, as per information available with the department, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that the assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.1,31,58,116/- from one Shri Kallu Kureshi and there were various credit transactions in different bank accounts of the assessee totaling to Rs.13,08,60,19,698/- , which did not match with the return filed

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

46,720/-. Subsequently, as per information available with the department, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that the assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.1,31,58,116/- from one Shri Kallu Kureshi and there were various credit transactions in different bank accounts of the assessee totaling to Rs.13,08,60,19,698/- , which did not match with the return filed

ZAHEER SALIMUDDIN,ALIGARH vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act. The net profit in these two cases have been shown at 0.23% and 0.17% respectively. In the preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2013-14, the business income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.12,85,927/- from the total turnover of Rs.55,34,75,107/- and therefore, the net profit comes

A.C.I.T.-4(1), AGRA vs. M/S ROGER INDUSTRIES LTD., AGRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

10 (Special Bench) in case of ‘ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour P. Ltd.’ 313 ITR 146(AT). The Special Bench held that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) do not spell out as to whether the income has to be taxed in the hands of shareholder or the concern(non-shareholder). It further observed that since the provisions are ambiguous

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

penalty proceedings. The revised return has not been accepted. So, the issue ought to have been decided by the ld. CIT(A) on merit. For the purpose, the matter is now remitted to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) shall afford due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to support her case and then decide