LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

LALTHANGVELI PACHUAU,AIZAWL vs. ITO W-1 SILCHAR, SILCHAR

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against The Assessment Order & Penalty Orders As Under:

271(1)(c) 18.08.25 42 days Penalty of Rs. 50,88,576/- A.Y. 2015-16 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as per the information with the income tax department the assessee has deposited substantial amount of cash in his savings bank accounts in SBI Madame Cama Road, Mumbai but did not file return of income

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAJODIA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHILLONG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act on 09.01.2019 to the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It was noted by the AO in the assessment proceedings that the assessee had deposited cash

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAJODIA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHILLONG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act on 09.01.2019 to the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It was noted by the AO in the assessment proceedings that the assessee had deposited cash

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAJODIA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHILLONG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act on 09.01.2019 to the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It was noted by the AO in the assessment proceedings that the assessee had deposited cash

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAJODIA,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHILLONG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act on 09.01.2019 to the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It was noted by the AO in the assessment proceedings that the assessee had deposited cash

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the order dated 14/05/2024 partly allowed the appeal by holding as under: “5.5 Appellate Decision: On considering the entire factual and legal canvas of the case, it transpires

TOSHEVI KEDITSU SEMA,KOHIMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), and 271F of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide the order dated 14/05/2024 partly allowed the appeal by holding as under: “5.5 Appellate Decision: On considering the entire factual and legal canvas of the case, it transpires

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AGARTALA , AGARTALA vs. SHRI SUBHAJIT PAUL, AGARTALA

In the result, cross-objection nos

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

SOFIQUL ISLAM,NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. ITO, WARD NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was passed on 30.06.2023. 5. That I am presently facing a permanent physical disability arising from a severe Brain Stroke which occurred to me on 10.03.2020 and 1 am not able to attend to my day-to-day affairs; 6. That owing to my medical condition, I am not able to access my e-filing

SOFIQUL ISLAM,NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. ITO, WARD NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was passed on 30.06.2023. 5. That I am presently facing a permanent physical disability arising from a severe Brain Stroke which occurred to me on 10.03.2020 and 1 am not able to attend to my day-to-day affairs; 6. That owing to my medical condition, I am not able to access my e-filing

KENNETH BLAH,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Gty/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

u/s 10(26) on his income, he cannot claim that provisions of the Income Tax Act do not apply to him. In fact the Income Tax Act itself contains a provision that his income is exempted from tax. However, such exemption from tax cannot render his exempt from the consequences of infraction of the other provisions of the Income

JAHAR DEB,AGARTALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, AGARTALA, AGARTALA

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Id. AO vide order dated 22.09.2022.\n\n2. At the outset, the Id. Counsel for the assessee submitted the case of the assessee is ex-parte before the Id. AO as well as before CIT (A) though the assessee attended the proceedings before CIT(A). However

JAHAR DEB,AGARTALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, AGARTALA, AGARTALA

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Id. AO vide\norder dated 22.09.2022.\n\n2.\nAt the outset, the Id. Counsel for the assessee submitted the case of\nthe assessee is ex-parte before the Id. AO as well as before CIT (A)\nthough the assessee attended the proceedings before CIT(A).\nHowever

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

cash, jewellery or any unaccounted/undisclosed asset was found or seized by the Search Team from the assessee. Prior to the search, the assessee was regularly assessed to income-tax at Kolkata. Consequent to the search and seizure operation, the assessee’s case was centralized with ACIT/DCIT, Central-Circle-1, Guwahati vide order dated 23.12.2000 of the Ld. PCIT u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

cash, jewellery or any unaccounted/undisclosed asset was found or seized by the Search Team from the assessee. Prior to the search, the assessee was regularly assessed to income-tax at Kolkata. Consequent to the search and seizure operation, the assessee’s case was centralized with ACIT/DCIT, Central-Circle-1, Guwahati vide order dated 23.12.2000 of the Ld. PCIT u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

cash, jewellery or any unaccounted/undisclosed asset was found or seized by the Search Team from the assessee. Prior to the search, the assessee was regularly assessed to income-tax at Kolkata. Consequent to the search and seizure operation, the assessee’s case was centralized with ACIT/DCIT, Central-Circle-1, Guwahati vide order dated 23.12.2000 of the Ld. PCIT u/s