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

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

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. From the perusal of the notices issued for initiation of the penalty proceedings, we find that AO has not specified the limb of which the satisfaction is recorded for initiation of penalty proceedings. The assessee was not show caused to explain whether the penalty is going

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)

5. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. The assessee produced the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the ITO has not mentioned the specific charge or limb for which the notice was issued and not strike off the irrelevant charge. For the sake

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)

5. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. The assessee produced the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the ITO has not mentioned the specific charge or limb for which the notice was issued and not strike off the irrelevant charge. For the sake

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)

5. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. The assessee produced the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the ITO has not mentioned the specific charge or limb for which the notice was issued and not strike off the irrelevant charge. For the sake

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

10(26BBB) of the I.T. Act is disallowed and assessment is completed on total income of Rs.6,79,59,986/-accordingly. Issue notice of demand. Charge interest u/s 234A/B/C. Give credit for prepaid taxes. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, inaccurate particulars of its income.” 5. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal

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

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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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(1)(c) of the Act dated 08.09.2016 levied

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(1)(c) of the Act dated 08.09.2016 levied

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5\nITO [2022] 143 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi) and of the Co-ordinate\nBench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Nitin Jain vs ACIT in ITA\nNo.1775/Del/2024 order dated 07.03.2025.\n12. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue vehemently\nsupported the orders of the lower authorities and submits that\nnotice u/s 148 was sent on the e-mail