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)

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

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

5 184. Indeed, Kaushaiya did discuss the aspect of prejudice. As we I.T.A.No.1409/Del/2016 have already noted, Kaushaiya noted that the assessment orders already contained the reasons why penalty should be initiated. So, the assessee, stresses Kaushaiya, "fully knew in detail the exact charge of the Revenue against him". For Kaushaiya, the statutory notice suffered from neither non- application

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

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 the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number

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

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 the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number

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

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 the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number

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

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 the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number

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

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 the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number

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

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 the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number

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

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 the provisions of section 44AB of the Act by furnishing the audited accounts by the specified date and initiating penalty proceeding under section 27IB of the Act.” 52. Ground number

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.\nPage | 1\n2. As these three appeals are having the issues which are inter-\nlinked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the\nparties during the course of hearing before us, therefore, all three\nappeals

HARISH CHANDRA BATRA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

11, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that “issue penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c).” 4. We also find that the para no. 5 of the penalty order dated10.02.2015 reads as under: ITA No.4082.Del.2017 2 Harish Chandra Batra “5. Accordingly, for the facts mentioned above, the assessee is being held as an ‘assessee-in-default’ for the purpose of imposing

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. ITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024 2. As these three appeals are having the issues which are inter- linked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the parties during the course of hearing before us, therefore, all three

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.\nPage | 1\nITA Nos.64, 78 & 79/DDN/2024\n2. As these three appeals are having the issues which are inter-\nlinked, inter-connected and this fact has been admitted by both the\nparties during the course of hearing before

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

11\nITA No.69/DDN/2024\noverdue interest on the higher purchase agreements. So, it chose to\nkeep the impugned interest in suspense account. Hence, the Tribunal\nwas found to be justified in holding that the impugned sum was not liable\nto income tax.\n➤ Mumbai Bench of ITAT in Bechtel International Inc. v. Dy. DIT,\nInternational Taxation [2016] 71 taxmann.com 62 (Mumbai