M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

144/- for AY 2011-12. For\nthese sustained additions, the AO imposed impugned penalties u/s 271(1)(c).\n4.\nOriginally, the assessee raised grounds in Form No. 36. Since these\ngrounds are identical in all three years, we re-produce below the grounds of\nfirst AY 2009-10 for an immediate reference:\n\"a.\nThat on the facts and circumstances

SMT. KAVITA SACHDEV,INDORE vs. ITO-3(4), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, 112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Arcps6793D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of the assessee, if the self-assessment tax paid prior to notice issued u/s 148 is taken into consideration then there is no amount remains as tax sought to be evaded and consequently, no penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Authorized

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI PARESH M JOSHI (Judicial Member)

section 148 of the 'Act' and levied penalty of amount Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16.\n\n4. 1. 2. On perusal of assessment records, I find that during the assessment proceedings, the appellant always failed to comply the notices issued to him. As per record, several opportunities have been given

ITO-1, ITARSI vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR SONI, ITARSI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Years: 2011-12 Ito-1

144/- surrendered during the course of survey. Assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act was carried out and the Ld. AO made no addition and assessed the income as disclosed in the return of income. However, Ld. AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 9. We find that it is a judiciary

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3(1, BHOPAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

271(1)(c) of the IT Act vide order dated 22.06.2018. This order was duly served on the appellant and hence, he filed appeal against this penalty order on 27.07.2018. In the appeal memo, the appellant claimed that the penalty order and demand notice was served on 28.06.2018. 2.3 In spite of receipt of the penalty order, the appellant failed

JAYKRISHNAN NAIR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

271(1)(c) of the IT Act vide order dated 22.06.2018. This order was duly served on the appellant and hence, he filed appeal against this penalty order on 27.07.2018. In the appeal memo, the appellant claimed that the penalty order and demand notice was served on 28.06.2018. 2.3 In spite of receipt of the penalty order, the appellant failed

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito-1(1) बनाम/ Kalra, Ujjain Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

144 read with section 263 through order dated 27.08.2019. He submits that the impugned penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. (ii) ITA No. 301/Ind/2023 is directed against appeal-order dated 26.04.2023 passed CIT(A) which in turn arise out of penalty-order dated 28.09.2015 passed by AO u/s 271

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO-WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. (ii) ITA No. 301/Ind/2023 is directed against appeal-order dated 26.04.2023 passed CIT(A) which in turn arise out of penalty-order dated 28.09.2015 passed by AO u/s 271

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]. (ii) ITA No. 301/Ind/2023 is directed against appeal-order dated 26.04.2023 passed CIT(A) which in turn arise out of penalty-order dated 28.09.2015 passed by AO u/s 271

MUSTAFA ALI,NEEMUCH vs. ITO, NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimustafa Ali Ito (Through Aun Ali Otiawala Neemuch General Power Of Attorney Hlder) Vs. Neemuch (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Angpa4533K Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2024

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by the AO against the addition made on account of cash deposit in the bank account of the assesse while framing the assessment u/s 144 r.w. section

VIMALA DEVI BAHETI,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

Appeals are allowed

271(1)(b) for non-compliances of three (3)\nnotices dated 09.08.2023, 31.08.2023 and 12.09.2023 issued u/s 142(1)\nduring scrutiny-proceedings. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that initially\nthe AO issued notice dated 21.02.2023 u/s 148A(b) to assessee seeking\ninformation about sale transaction of immovable property on the basis of\ninformation directly received from office of sub-registrar

SATYA NARAYAN AGRAWAL,VIDISHA vs. ACIT 4 (1), VIDISHA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisatya Narayan Agrawal Acit, 4(1) 25, Station Road, Ganj Bhopal Vs. Basoda, Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxpa 1865 E Assessee By Shri Arun Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22 .06.2023

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) were dropped on assurance of full and proper compliance. As per point no. 7 (of submission dated 14.10.2016) the assessee had requested for some more time for verification of vouchers, which had not produced in this office till the date of issue of 144 notice mentioned above. Since the assessee has repeatedly delayed submissions

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. ITO ACIT DYCIT FACELESS ASSESSMENT, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act. Charge interst as per provision of IT Act. Issue requisite documents alongwith copy of this order. Penalty preceding u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 as discussed above is being initiated. Penalty preceding u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 for non compliance of notice issued u/s

NAVIN KUMAR JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INDORE

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act. Charge interst as per provision of IT Act. Issue requisite documents alongwith copy of this order. Penalty preceding u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, 1961 as discussed above is being initiated. Penalty preceding u/s 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 for non compliance of notice issued u/s

JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2 , BHOPAL

In the result “Impugned Order” is set aside and penalty at

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshi

section 148 of the 'Act' and levied penalty of amount Rs 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16. 4.1.2. On perusal of assessment records, I find that during the assessment proceedings, the appellant always failed to comply the notices issued to him. As per record, several opportunities have been given to the appellant during

RAJYESHWAR RETAIL TRADE SYSTEMS PVT LTD,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(b) of\nthe Act. A show cause notice for penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the\nAct dated 29.12.2020 was issued to the assessee requiring him\nto show cause on or before 04.01.2021 as to why penalty of\nRs.10,000/- should not be levied upon the assessee for non-\ncompliance of notice u/s

SOURABH SHARMA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, DELHI

The appeal of the assesse is allowed\nfor statistical purpose

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) of the\nIncome Tax Act is initiated separately\".\n2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid\n\"impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A\nof the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order\" has\ndismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on the grounds and\nreasons stated