MI OVERSEAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I. OVERSEAS LTD., NOIDA

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act 11. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessee is required to comply with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN vs. SEABIRD EXPLORATION FZ-LLC, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

10 % computed u/s 44BB of the Act and delete the adjustment proposed by TPO. Accordingly, total income was assessed at INR 16,87,46,765/- in terms of order passed u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Act. AO further initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Thereafter, the AO proceeded to conclude

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)

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

section 271(1)(c ) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Ratio of the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case as the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s

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)

3. The Ld. Counsel for the vehemently contended that the orders of penalty have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the A.O. has not strike off the irrelevant limb and notspecified the charge for which notice was issued. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relying

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)

3. The Ld. Counsel for the vehemently contended that the orders of penalty have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the A.O. has not strike off the irrelevant limb and notspecified the charge for which notice was issued. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relying

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)

3. The Ld. Counsel for the vehemently contended that the orders of penalty have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the A.O. has not strike off the irrelevant limb and notspecified the charge for which notice was issued. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee relying

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

3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty

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

u/s 274 of the Act for initiation of Penalty Proceedings vide notice dated 10/03/2015. As per the assessment order and the penalty order it is not clear as to on which limb the penalty proceedings has been initiated against the assessee. Neither the assessment order nor the penalty notice has specified the relevant and exact limb of the penalty proceedings

M/S. UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Uttrakhand Purv Ito,Ward-2(5), Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan,13-A, Subhash (Upnl) Vs Road, Dehradun Uttrakhand- Station Sub Area, Garhi 248003 Cantt, Dehradun-248003 Pan-Aaacu7129D Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.03.2025

3)/147 dated 25/02/2015 is merely 'change in opinion'. The action of the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law. 5. That the levy of interest under section 234A/B/C and 234D is erroneous and deserves to be deleted. 6. That the intention of penalty proceedings us 271

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

section 144 and penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. In the quantum appeal, the assessee raised following grounds : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay of more than 2 years merely on ground that the erstwhile

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

Section 143(3) of the Act on 25.02.2015 determining the total income at Rs.6,84,52,829/- inter alia by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(26BBB) of the Act. On such denial of claim of exemption u/s 10(26BBB) of the Act, AO vide penalty order passed u/s 271

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

Section 143(3) of the Act on 25.02.2015 determining the total income at Rs.6,84,52,829/- inter alia by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(26BBB) of the Act. On such denial of claim of exemption u/s 10(26BBB) of the Act, AO vide penalty order passed u/s 271

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3\n8. The assessee placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs CIT [1998] 229 ITR\n338 (SC) and CIT vs Sinhgad Technical Education society\n[2017] 397 ITR 344 (SC) and requested for the admission of the\nsame.\n9. After considering the submissions of the assessee and looking