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

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 - A.Y. 2008 -09 – Reg:- Whereas in the course of the proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you;- ** have concealed the particulars of your income or have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 - A.Y. 2008 -09 – Reg:- Whereas in the course of the proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you;- ** have concealed the particulars of your income or have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before

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

9. BECAUSE, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty even on ad hoc disallowances of Rs.39,779/- and Rs.50,000/-, which being estimated disallowances cannot invite penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the 'Act' as per settled judicial position. 4 | P a g e 10. BECAUSE, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the paper\nbook placed before us. We find that the brief issue before us is the levy of\npenalty under section 271(1)(c) on two counts 1. excess claim of brought\nforward MAT credit and 2.disallowance of expenses incurred on earning\nexempt income.\n9.1. On the issue

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

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 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

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

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

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

u/s 274 should specifically state the ground mentioned in Assessment Year: 2008-09 Section 271(1)(c) that is whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. It is not disputed that the Assessing Officer records that the penalty

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

9 SCC 589." (Emphasis supplied). The Assessing Officer, in our view, has recorded a categorical finding that he was satisfied that the assessee I.T.A No. 349/Agra/2018 13 & S.A. No.06/Agra/2018 (in I.T.A No. 349/Agra/2018) had concealed true particulars of income and is liable for penalty proceedings under section 271 read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 16. Taking

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In support,he placed reliance on the following decisions. I. 42 Taxman.Com 20 (Del HC), CIT vs Arcotech Ltd. II. 152 ITR 529 (Madras HC), CIT vs B.A. Balasubramanian & Brothers Co. where it was observed that in the cases of assessment on the basis of estimates, applicability of section 271

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) could be levied based on 'tax' sought to be evaded under the 'Act' and not with reference to 'surcharge' or 'cess', as the case may be, levied under relevant Finance Act. 5. Because the order appealed against is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Perused the records and heard ld representative for the assessee

MANAS SEWA SAMITI,ALIGARH vs. ADDL. C.I.T. RANGE-I, ALIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(l)(c) can be sustained that too for concealment of Income as initiated in the Assessment Order for A.Y. 2009-10. 3. Vide Assessment Order dated 05.12.2011 penalty was initiated for raising non- admissible claim under section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act. In view of the development of facts as stated in above para no penalty is exigible

M/S MISS HILL EDUCATION SOCIETY,GWALIOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section, which may be approved by the prescribed authority. The AO observed that in the absence of approval by the prescribed authority, the assessee could not enjoy exemption u/s 10 (23C) of the Act. The assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.40,18,770/-. Vide application filed u/s 154 of the Act, the assessee claimed depreciation. The AO allowed depreciation

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

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

9. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed second appeal with ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra, and at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) appellate order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not adjudicated the appeal of the assessee on merits. My attention was drawn to provisions