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

11 274 r.w.s 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated January 6, 2014 the ITO did not specify as to whether the penalty was leviable for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof.”; that: “The two charges for initiating the penalty operate on two different footing and under the penal provision the charge has to be very

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 - A.Y. 2008 -09 – Reg:- Whereas in the course of the proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you;- ** have concealed the particulars of your income or have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

section 271(1)(c) of the 'Act' as per settled judicial position. 4 | P a g e 10. BECAUSE, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty at 200% of the tax sought to be evaded, which is highly excessive, unjustified, and disproportionate to the alleged default, particularly when no deliberate concealment or malafide conduct was established, only

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

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

6. That the penalty order is vitiated by non-application of mind and mechanical satisfaction, as the AO merely reproduced the assessment findings without independent reasoning for levy of penalty. 7. That the penalty is not sustainable as the AO relied on deeming fiction under Section 50C to compute LTCG, and penalty cannot be levied on additions made purely

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

6. That the penalty order is vitiated by non-application of mind and mechanical satisfaction, as the AO merely reproduced the assessment findings without independent reasoning for levy of penalty. 7. That the penalty is not sustainable as the AO relied on deeming fiction under Section 50C to compute LTCG, and penalty cannot be levied on additions made purely

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained merely because the addition was confirmed by appellate Tribunal, without appreciating the explanation submitted. 4. Because, and without prejudice to aforesaid, learned 'CIT (Appeals)' has erred and failed to appreciate that penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied based on 'tax' sought to be evaded under

DIXIT RICE MILL ,AURAIYA vs. DCIT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

u/s 143(1) being bad in law is liable to be quashed. 4. Because in any view of the matter, no opportunity was provided to the assessee, by the CPC, before making such disallowance and therefore the disallowance being made is against the principle of natural justice and bad in law and hence liable to be deleted. 5. Because

SH. GIRRAJ KISHORE AGARWAL, HUF,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). It is Said down that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and the burden of proof that there is no guilty mind is on the assessee. It is specifically stated that when the explanation offered is found to be false or when the assessee fails to provs. that the explanation

M/S NARESH KATARE, CONTRACTOR,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, GWALIOR

In the result, appeals of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) can not be ruled out. III. 124 ITR 376 (Madras HC) Rathnam& co. vs. IAC. IV. 236 ITR 977 (SC) the apex court in the case of CIT vs B.A. Balasubramanian & Brothers Co. decision of hon’ble Madras High Court affirmed, cited 124 ITR 376. V. 118 Taxman 324 (SC) and 251 ITR 99 (SC) Maka

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

6. The issue was raised before the ld. CIT(A) by way of Ground No.3 as under: “3. Because without prejudice to the above-mentioned grounds penalty imposed is also wrong and illegal on the grounds that the penalty has been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the penalty has been imposed for concealment of income

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

u/s 271(1)(C). In this case assessee has made a claim which is wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished to explain the cash deposits in terms of advance for sale of land is also found to be wrong as assessee could not file any details of land that was sold or any agreement to sell

MANAS SEWA SAMITI,ALIGARH vs. ADDL. C.I.T. RANGE-I, ALIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

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

11 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case do not lay down a sound basis for imposition of penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the act. 5. BECAUSE, in any view of the matter the penalty order is bad on facts and in law.” 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits, as also stated

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

11,380/-. Addition of Rs.32,30,790/- was made by the Assessing Officer towards peak investment made by the assessee in the share transactions business , as the assessee could not explain the sources of such investments made by him in the share trading business. Assessee has claimed that the assessee is dealing in share market for last 6-7 years

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

11,380/-. Addition of Rs.32,30,790/- was made by the Assessing Officer towards peak investment made by the assessee in the share transactions business , as the assessee could not explain the sources of such investments made by him in the share trading business. Assessee has claimed that the assessee is dealing in share market for last 6-7 years

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

11,380/-. Addition of Rs.32,30,790/- was made by the Assessing Officer towards peak investment made by the assessee in the share transactions business , as the assessee could not explain the sources of such investments made by him in the share trading business. Assessee has claimed that the assessee is dealing in share market for last 6-7 years