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

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) it has to be made clear as to under which limb it is being levied. As per Hon'ble High Court, where the Assessing Officer proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court held that the standard proforma of notice under section 274

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

271(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

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

274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. 2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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, the case

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

274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. 2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh

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

274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. 2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh

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

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Section 271(1)(C)\nof the Act in the penalty notice dated 28/12/2018, therefore, the\ninitiation of penalty is erroneous.\n4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that\nthe subject penalty proceedings have been initiated pursuant to the\npenalty notice dated 02/12/2024, wherein specific limb of penalty has\nbeen mentioned. The Ld. Department's Representative taken us through\nthe

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 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

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 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

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 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

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 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

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 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

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 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

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 ITR 395 (Uttaranchal), CIT v. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 703 (Mad) and CIT v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 433 (Guj). Thus for assessment year 2006 – 07, the assessee cannot be subjected to interest u/s 234B of the income tax act. This is also for the reason that proviso inserted u/s

SAWNEY BUILDERS,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, DEHRADUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

u/s 274 read with Section 271 was issued on 30/1/2014 and after giving opportunity to the assessee passed the penalty