MS/ BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES,AGRA vs. THE A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

3 Income Tax Act, which form the basis for the levy of penalty. It is a question of law which goes to the root of the matter hence, admitted and adjudicated at first. 4. The issue of validity of notice under Section 274,for the penalty levied u/s 271

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

3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the penalty order dated 25.02.2011, as sustained by the ld. CIT(A), is void ab initio, as the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on 11.08.2010 is not in confirmity with the law. 4. As per the ld. DR, however, the notice is entirely

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

3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the penalty order dated 25.02.2011, as sustained by the ld. CIT(A), is void ab initio, as the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on 11.08.2010 was not in conformity with the law. His arguments in this regard shall be presently discussed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty order dated 24.11.2017 passed\nunder Sections 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act for\nshort\").\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership\nfirm, engaged in the business of civil contract work in various\ndepartments. The assessee has e-filled his return of income on 14-10-\n2010 declaring

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s\n271(1)(c).\nTherefore it is held that penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) amounting\nto Rs.11,32,386/- qua revised MAT Credit be hereby deleted .\"\n5.\nRespectfully following the same, we hold that the levy of penalty under\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act for the inadvertent claim of MAT credit is hereby\ndeleted. Accordingly

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

3. BECAUSE, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that non-striking of the irrelevant limb in the notice under section 274 reflects non- application of mind by the AO, rendering the entire penalty proceedings void as held in various judicial pronouncements. 4. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding that section 292B cured the defect

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)

3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. AR placed on record the show cause notice issued for penalty u/s 274 read with section 271

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)

3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. AR placed on record the show cause notice issued for penalty u/s 274 read with section 271

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)

3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. AR placed on record the show cause notice issued for penalty u/s 274 read with section 271

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) dated 14/06/2019 & relevant quantum order U/s 153C / 143(3) dated 28/12/2018 are without jurisdiction. The penalty order as well as the quantum order are passed by the assessing officer who does not hold the valid charge to assessee the cases selected U/s 153A & 153C. 11. That the penalty is otherwise excessive, arbitrary, and deserves to be deleted

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) dated 14/06/2019 & relevant quantum order U/s 153C / 143(3) dated 28/12/2018 are without jurisdiction. The penalty order as well as the quantum order are passed by the assessing officer who does not hold the valid charge to assessee the cases selected U/s 153A & 153C. 11. That the penalty is otherwise excessive, arbitrary, and deserves to be deleted

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

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

penalty has been imposed on undisclosed amount which represents the undisclosed income on which addition has been made in the assessment u/s 153A/143(3). Here, it is relevant to reproduce sub section 1(b) of section 271

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

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

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

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1) (c) of I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That the appellate order dated 17tri March, 2016 passed by the learned CIT (A) -I, Agra is against the law and facts of the assessee's case. The appellant also seeks permission to modify and/or adduce any other ground/grounds of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require

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

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1) (c) of I.T. Act, 1961. 7. That the appellate order dated 17tri March, 2016 passed by the learned CIT (A) -I, Agra is against the law and facts of the assessee's case. The appellant also seeks permission to modify and/or adduce any other ground/grounds of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require

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(l)(c) where the addition was also sustained by the Hon'ble ITAT by applying the net profit rate of 3%. The penalty so imposed was cancelled by the CIT (Appeals) and the order of CIT (Appeals) cancelling the penalty was sustained by ITAT, Agra Bench. In Assessment Year 2009-10, in the present year, the penalty

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