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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted

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

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

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(b) were deemed non-est and quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(b)", "148", "147", "144", "144B", "250", "69A", "234A", "234B", "142(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings and the consequent penalty

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

Section 195 of the income tax act and therefore not required to pay interest u/s 234B & 234C of the act. 58. Ground number 10 and 11 are with respect to the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1

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

Section 195 of the income tax act and therefore not required to pay interest u/s 234B & 234C of the act. 58. Ground number 10 and 11 are with respect to the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1

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

Section 195 of the income tax act and therefore not required to pay interest u/s 234B & 234C of the act. 58. Ground number 10 and 11 are with respect to the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1

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

Section 195 of the income tax act and therefore not required to pay interest u/s 234B & 234C of the act. 58. Ground number 10 and 11 are with respect to the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1

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

Section 195 of the income tax act and therefore not required to pay interest u/s 234B & 234C of the act. 58. Ground number 10 and 11 are with respect to the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1

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

Section 195 of the income tax act and therefore not required to pay interest u/s 234B & 234C of the act. 58. Ground number 10 and 11 are with respect to the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1

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

Section 195 of the income tax act and therefore not required to pay interest u/s 234B & 234C of the act. 58. Ground number 10 and 11 are with respect to the initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1

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 have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein

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 have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein

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 have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein

AKHILESH SINGHAL,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 148 and subsequent notices were not served on the assessee at the correct address or email ID. Consequently, the penalty levied for non-compliance was deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1

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

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

1)(c)has mentioned as under:- 3 “Assessment is completed u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 on the total income 704660/- in the assessee status of individual issued notice of demand and challan. Issued Penalty u/s 274 read with Section 271(1

BEER SINGH BISHT,PAURI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4)(3), KOTHDWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. AY: 2014-15 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a retired teacher from Education Department of Uttarakhand. Based on the AIR information

SHRI PURAN CHAN & CO.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CC-DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were issued on\n28/12/2018 and on 02/02/2018. An order of penalty came to be passed\non 28/03/2025 by imposing penalty of Rs. 1,18,808/. As against the\norder of penalty dated 28/03/2025, the Assessee preferred an appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 11/06/2025,\ndismissed