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

2. Facts, for convenience, are being taken from ITA No. 118/Agra/2015, the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the CIT(A)’s order confirming penalty of Rs.98,000/- imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. AIR information was received in respect of the assessee, as per which, cash deposits amounting to Rs.65

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

2. Facts, for convenience, are being taken from ITA No. 118/Agra/2015, the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the CIT(A)’s order confirming penalty of Rs.98,000/- imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. AIR information was received in respect of the assessee, as per which, cash deposits amounting to Rs.6541003

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

2)(vii) of the Act. Based on the above additions, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty of Rs.83,45,158/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The aforesaid additions made by the Assessing Officer stood confirmed by learned CIT(A) in assessee’s quantum appeal and in second appeal filed by the Assessee, the Tribunal, vide

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

u/s 271(1)(c). Therefore it is held that penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.11,32,386/- qua revised MAT Credit be hereby deleted ." 5. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the inadvertent claim of MAT credit is hereby deleted. Accordingly

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

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)

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 notice had not struck off the inappropriate portion

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)

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 notice had not struck off the inappropriate portion

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)

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 notice had not struck off the inappropriate portion

PREM LATA VERMA ,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and by charging the interest u/s 234B of the Act. Ground No. 6: That the appellant reserves the right to add, modify, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds.” ADDITIONAL GROUND: "7. That the assessment order concluded 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act is bad in the eyes

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

271(1)(c) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section 274 whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income," thereby violating principles laid down in various judicial precedents of hon'ble court. 5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged

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

271(1)(c) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section 274 whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income," thereby violating principles laid down in various judicial precedents of hon'ble court. 5. That the penalty is not leviable as the alleged

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

u/s 2(22)(e). To which the assessee replied that since the assessee company has purchased shoes from M/S Euro Safety Footwear (P) Ltd., these are commercial transactions and the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are not attracted. The assessee believed that the reply would be convincing and did not file any other evidence at that point of time

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

2. The solitary issue raised by the assessee in the Appeal is relating to sustaining the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings on the notices issued under section

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

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 31.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Etawah (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before this Tribunal by 975 days. Considering

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

2. The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 15.02.2017 had confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. While confirming the penalty orders, the ld. CIT(A) in paragraph No. 4.1 had recorded his findings to the following effect : 4.1 I have carefully gone through the penalty order in the above cases. It is seen that

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

2. Apropos Ground No.3, the assessee objected the imposition of penalty as being wrong and illegal on the ground that the initiation of penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the penalty has been imposed for concealment of income. 3. The assessee e-filed on 30.09.2008, declaring total income at Rs.36,10,920/- and the same was processed

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