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

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

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

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41,98,630/-. Subsequently

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

Section 250(6). I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 113/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16, stands allowed for statistical purposes. I order accordingly. ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17): 12. This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 for assessment

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

Section 250(6). I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 113/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16, stands allowed for statistical purposes. I order accordingly. ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17): 12. This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 for assessment

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

Section 250(6). I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 113/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16, stands allowed for statistical purposes. I order accordingly. ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17): 12. This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 for assessment

TOMAR & BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act to impose penalty. 3. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the findings of lower authorities. 4. Considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record. 5. We observe that various courts have held that penalty cannot be imposed u/s

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

3 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 and closed down his business in the year 2019. Assessee did not employ any person for looking after his affairs. This caused the delay in filing this appeal. Delay condonation application is supported with assessee’s uncontroverted affidavit. The cause for the delay seems to be sufficient and the delay

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

3 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 and closed down his business in the year 2019. Assessee did not employ any person for looking after his affairs. This caused the delay in filing this appeal. Delay condonation application is supported with assessee’s uncontroverted affidavit. The cause for the delay seems to be sufficient and the delay

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

JAGGO,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Jaggo Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Sh. Indar H. No. 6, Azampur Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura Mathura, Mathura Pan : Ayopj8958J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 17.11.2025 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Assessee Is In This Appeal, Raising Following Grounds : “1. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Information/Explanation Along With The Documents During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Above Notice Was Issued Through Registered E-Mail Id & Fixed For Compliance On 26.02.2021, After Laps Of Considerable Time, The Assessing Officer Issued The Another Notice U/S 274 To The Assessee R.W.S 271(1)B) Of The Act Why Penalty U/S 271 Of The Act Should Not Be Initiated & Levied. In Compliance, The Assessee Not Submitted Any Reply. Accordingly, Assessing Officer Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-.

penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the notice u/s