SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act on 16.1.2019. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the penalty orders under section 271(1)(b) on 30.1.2019 for all four assessment years whereby the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed for each assessment year on account of default / non-compliance of notice issued under section

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act on 16.1.2019. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the penalty orders under section 271(1)(b) on 30.1.2019 for all four assessment years whereby the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed for each assessment year on account of default / non-compliance of notice issued under section

SMT. AMITA RAJVEDI,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kochar

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act on 16.1.2019. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the penalty orders under section 271(1)(b) on 30.1.2019 for all four assessment years whereby the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed for each assessment year on account of default / non-compliance of notice issued under section

SHRI KAMALENDRA BHADUR MISHRA,,SONEBHADRA vs. DCIT, RANGE-III, MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kamalendra Bhadur Mishra V. Dcit Prop. M/S K.S. Engineearing Range Iii Iii-19, Jme Colony Mirzapur Shakti Dnagar, Sonebhadra Tan/Pan:Adbpm4445K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K.R. Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 02 2020 O R D E R

274 r.w. 271(1)(c) in regards to under which limb Ld. AO proposed to levy the penalty, either for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The Learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law in not maintaining judicial discipline in view of the trite law that no penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) lie in case of estimated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD vs. JYOTI MEDISERVICES LTD., ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, ,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act.” I.T.A. No.129/Alld/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13 I.T.A. Nos.113, 114, 115 & 129/Alld/2025 Assessment Years:2011-12 to 13-14 6 (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are hereby disposed of through this consolidated order. At the time of hearing before

BAL BHARTI NURSERY SCHOOL,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; and moreover, the AO failed to strike down the in-applicable portion of the fault/charge which would have in that event given the assessee an idea of what fault the AO intended to proceed against it for levy of penalty. This omission on the part of AO, vitiates the penalty notices issued

BAL BHARTI NURSERY SCHOOL,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; and moreover, the AO failed to strike down the in-applicable portion of the fault/charge which would have in that event given the assessee an idea of what fault the AO intended to proceed against it for levy of penalty. This omission on the part of AO, vitiates the penalty notices issued

BAL BHARTI NURSERY SCHOOL,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.62/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.63/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.64/Alld/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bal Bharti Nursery School बिधम/ Ito (Exemption 13, Kamla Nehru Road, Allahabad) Vs. Civil Lines, Allahabad, Central Revenue Uttar Pradesh-211001. Building, M. G. Marg, Income Tax Office, Allahabad-211001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb6395D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Ashish Bansal Revenue By: Shri Amlendu Nath Mishra (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.03.2023 For Ay. 2008-09, Ay. 2010-11 & Ay. 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. Since Both Parties Agree That The Penalty Levied By The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) Are Similar/Identical In All The Captioned Assessment Years, The Decision Of Any One Appeal Would Determine The Fate Of Others. Therefore, Appeal Of Ay. 2008-09 Is Taken As The Lead Case, (However, A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Bal Bharti Nursery School The Contents/Details Of Impugned Notices For All The Captioned Years Will Be Discussed Separately Infra).

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; and moreover, the AO failed to strike down the in-applicable portion of the fault/charge which would have in that event given the assessee an idea of what fault the AO intended to proceed against it for levy of penalty. This omission on the part of AO, vitiates the penalty notices issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), ALLAHABAD vs. MONAD INFRASOLUTION LIMITED, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and the Cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, V. Monad Infrasolution Limited, Ward-2(2), Allahabad C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Alld/2021 In Assessment Year: 2015-16 Monad Infrasolution Limited, V. Income Tax Officer, C-80 Gtb Nagar Kareli, Ward-2(2), Allahabad Allahabad, 211016 U.P. Pan-Aajcm2155J (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty order u/s 271 (1) (b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 20.11.2017 was passed Imposing Rs. 10,000/-. Final Show cause notice dated 04.12.2017 was issued through registered post /email, fixing the date of compliance on 11.12.2017 at 12.50 P.M at 38 M.G Marg, Kayaker Bhawan and show cause why following addition may not be made in your

ARPIT HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty. In this regard they placed reliance on the case of Sardar Harinder Singh vs. ITAT [1996] 219 ITR 257 (All). They also contended that no infirmity can be attributed in the statutory approvals even when it was not recorded in so many words. They placed reliance on the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT

MINTO COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty. In this regard they placed reliance on the case of Sardar Harinder Singh vs. ITAT [1996] 219 ITR 257 (All). They also contended that no infirmity can be attributed in the statutory approvals even when it was not recorded in so many words. They placed reliance on the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT

ARPIT HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty. In this regard they placed reliance on the case of Sardar Harinder Singh vs. ITAT [1996] 219 ITR 257 (All). They also contended that no infirmity can be attributed in the statutory approvals even when it was not recorded in so many words. They placed reliance on the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT

JEEVAN JYOTI INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty. In this regard they placed reliance on the case of Sardar Harinder Singh vs. ITAT [1996] 219 ITR 257 (All). They also contended that no infirmity can be attributed in the statutory approvals even when it was not recorded in so many words. They placed reliance on the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT

VANDANA BANSAL L/H OF LATE DR. ASHWANI KUMAR BANSAL, ,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty. In this regard they placed reliance on the case of Sardar Harinder Singh vs. ITAT [1996] 219 ITR 257 (All). They also contended that no infirmity can be attributed in the statutory approvals even when it was not recorded in so many words. They placed reliance on the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD vs. JEEVAN JYOTI CHARITABLE TRUST, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

penalty. In this regard they placed reliance on the case of Sardar Harinder Singh vs. ITAT [1996] 219 ITR 257 (All). They also contended that no infirmity can be attributed in the statutory approvals even when it was not recorded in so many words. They placed reliance on the case of Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) vs. ACIT