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

section 271(1)(c) by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1975, if the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the additions is either found to be false, or remained unsubstantiated, the additions so made are deemed to be concealed income, and therefore, the penalty provisions are attracted. The case has no application to the points and controversy under question herein

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. 271 would be warranted. In “HCIL Kalindee Arsspl” (supra), penalty under section 18. 271(l)(c) imposed on disallowance made under section 80IA, which was deleted by the ITAT on the ground that the claim raised under section 80IA, as was disallowed in quantum proceedings, was certified to be correct by the Chartered Accountant, who furnished the prescribed certificate

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c)\nof the Act levied the penalty of Rs 1,26,320/-.\n3. Aggrieved the order of the AO, the assessee has filed the appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 26-04-2023 dismissed\nthe appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before us on the\nfollowing grounds;\n1. That having

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that

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

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

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

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

section 68 which was confirmed in appeal. Held that since the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the donors there was no illegality in the orders of the authorities below. The same proposition of law is applicable to the facts of the present case as the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the cash deposits (Capital

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

BANCO CONSTRUCTION,BANSAL KOTHI, NEHRU COLONY THATIPUR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhbanco Construction, Vs. Acit, Bansal Kothi, Nehru Faceless, Gwalior Colony, Thatipur, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabfb7336D Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.06.2025 by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 56 of the Income Tax Act, hence AO is correct in law in treating it as "Income from other sources." This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before us at length with the support of detailed paper book and synopsis which are placed on record. He submitted that the judgement relied

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 56 of the Income Tax Act, hence AO is correct in law in treating it as "Income from other sources." This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before us at length with the support of detailed paper book and synopsis which are placed on record. He submitted that the judgement relied

SH. VISHNU KANT,,AGRA vs. ITO.-2(1)(5),, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2015-16

22,08,007/- + Rs. 1,92,280/- = 24,003287/- for the reasons best known to him, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of 'the Act' are initiated to be dealt with separately. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) read with section

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of the Act. That the appellate order dated 30th October, 2017 is arbitrary, capricious and 9. against natural justice and thus deserves to be quashed/annulled. The appellant seeks permission to modify and/or prefer any other ground of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require or justify.” 2. Apropos, ground nos.1

AMIT JAIN,FIROZABAD vs. ITO-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed”

Bench: The Learned Cit (A).

22 .03.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-I, Agra {CIT (A) } for the assessment year 2013-14. 2.0 Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the assessment order, are that the assessee, during the year under consideration, derived income from remuneration

D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD,MATHURA vs. ACIT 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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited