M/S KUMAON MANDAL VIKASH NIGAM LTD.,NANITAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, NANITAL

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, the consequent order of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby

SH.MOHIT BATOLA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CC, DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Mohit Batola Vs Acit 155, Village Miyanwala Central Circle P.O.-Harrawala, Dehradun, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aftpb3533M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Verendra Kalra, Ca Revenue By Shri S.K.Chaterjee, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 Order

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed wherein penalty of Rs.8,46,856/- was levied u/s 271

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) were deemed non-est and quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(b)", "148", "147", "144", "144B

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In the quantum

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

penalty order, both dated 07.09.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively

HOTEL PRESIDENT,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated against the Assessee and orders of penalty have been

HOTEL PRESIDENT,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated against the Assessee and orders of penalty have been

HOTEL PRESIDENT,HALDWANI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act were initiated against the Assessee and orders of penalty have been

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD DEHRADUN vs. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARAKHAND LTD. , I.T. PARK, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit Vs State Infrastructure & Circle-1(1) Industrial Development Dehradun Corporation Of Uttarakhand- Uttarakhand Ltd., 29 Iie, Sahastradhara Road (It Park) Road, Haripuram, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aahcs7324R Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Pramod Verma, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Sahil Kala, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 22.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. The Claim Of The Assessee Was That It Had Suo-Motto Withdrew The Inadvertent Amount Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80Ia Of The Act However, The Ao Has Levied The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By Ao Which Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). 3. Ld. Cit (A) By Observing That Under Identical Circumstances, Penalty Levied For Ay 2011-12 Was Deleted By His Predecessor. Since The Ld. Cit(A) Has Followed The Order For Ay 2011-12 Wherein Penalty Levied Under Identical Circumstances, Was Deleted Which Facts Has Not Been Controverted By The Revenue. The Relevant Observation Of Ld. Cit(A) While Deleting The Penalty Are Reproduced As Under:-

penalty for furnishing Inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) regarding excess claim of Rs.5,74,49,588/- u/s

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty order,\nboth dated 07.09.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for\n Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively

HOTEL SAURAB,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. We have perused the penalty notice dated 28.02.2013 issued u/s 274 read with

ITO, WARD- 2(5), DEHRADUN vs. UTTRAKHAND POORV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) vide penalty order dated 24.03.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Heard the contentions

EKSHAD AHAMAD PATODI,U S NAGAR vs. ACIT(OSD), WARD-2(3)(5), KHATIMA

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)has mentioned as under:- 3 “Assessment is completed u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 on the total

ITO, WARD- 2(5), DEHRADUN vs. UTTRAKHAND POORV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 08.09.2016 levied the penalty of Rs.2,32,67,120/- for concealment

ITO, WARD- 2(5), DEHRADUN vs. UTTRAKHAND POORV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 08.09.2016 levied the penalty of Rs.2,32,67,120/- for concealment

SHRI K.N. SHARMA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, ITA No.6908/Del/2014 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes; ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been restored to the file of the AO, therefore, the penalty so sustained by the CIT(A) does

SH. KAMAL NARAYAN SHARMA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, ITA No.6908/Del/2014 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes; ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been restored to the file of the AO, therefore, the penalty so sustained by the CIT(A) does

SARASWATI DYNAMICS P.LTD,ROORKEE vs. ACIT, HARIDWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty u/s ITA Nos. 178 & 179/DDN/2019 2 Saraswati Dynamics Pvt. Ltd. 271(1)(c) even when the penalty notice itself