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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4,25,299/- respectively.\n9.2. In the light of the above facts the imposition of penalty under section\n271(1)(c) on excess brought forward MAT credit has to be analyzed.\n9.3. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is levied for concealing or furnishing\ninaccurate particulars of income. In the case before us the issue relates to\nlevy of penalty

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)

4. Similar view was taken by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 432 ITR 84(Del) wherein it was held as under:- “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted

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)

4. Similar view was taken by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 432 ITR 84(Del) wherein it was held as under:- “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted

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)

4. Similar view was taken by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 432 ITR 84(Del) wherein it was held as under:- “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted

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

4. That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 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

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

4. That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 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

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

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 142(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer, no compliance was made by the assessee and due to non-cooperation and willful default by the assessee, AO imposed the penalty under section 271

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

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

4 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 of justice, is not to be followed. The object of prescribing certain time period for filing of the appeal is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In the instant case, the uncontroverted reasons mentioned in the delay condonation application are treated as sufficient

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

4 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 of justice, is not to be followed. The object of prescribing certain time period for filing of the appeal is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In the instant case, the uncontroverted reasons mentioned in the delay condonation application are treated as sufficient

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

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of\nRs. 2,50,000/-. These

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/-.

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 and fixed for compliance

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

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the act would have no legs to stand at this stage.\nAccordingly, these appeals are allowed.\n7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 367 to\n369/AGR/2025 are allowed and appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 388 to\n391/AGR/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.\nOrder pronounced

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

4) of the Act, and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) in limine ex-parte for non-prosecution, and without deciding the issues arising in the appeal on merits.There was no effective participation by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) during first appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) did not even called for the 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

4) of the Act, and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) in limine ex-parte for non-prosecution, and without deciding the issues arising in the appeal on merits.There was no effective participation by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) during first appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) did not even called for the 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

4) of the Act, and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) in limine ex-parte for non-prosecution, and without deciding the issues arising in the appeal on merits.There was no effective participation by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) during first appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) did not even called for the assessment