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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 1

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)

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. M/s Kumaon Mandal Vikash Nigam vs. ACIT 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the fact that the AO has failed to record the satisfaction about the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) at the time of initiation of penalty

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) 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

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

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

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)

9, 10 & 11/DDN/2025 Hotel President 6. On verifying the above notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, it is found that the said noticesare stereotype one and the AO has not specified any limb or charge for which the notices were issued i.e. either for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate

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)

9, 10 & 11/DDN/2025 Hotel President 6. On verifying the above notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, it is found that the said noticesare stereotype one and the AO has not specified any limb or charge for which the notices were issued i.e. either for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate

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)

9, 10 & 11/DDN/2025 Hotel President 6. On verifying the above notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, it is found that the said noticesare stereotype one and the AO has not specified any limb or charge for which the notices were issued i.e. either for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate

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

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

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

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