RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings\nhad been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of\nthe assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka\nHigh Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ACIT-3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL. CIT-RANGE-3, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, Insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concemed, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied.” 10. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court that in absence of satisfaction recorded regarding the penalty proceedings u/s 271E

RIYAZ QURESHI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

Appeals are allowed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings\nhad been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or\nfurnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of\nthe assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka\nHigh Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

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

163,098.67 ₹ TOTAL 4,958,545.87 It would be clear from perusal of the above tables that the Assessee has majorly withdrawn funds for the following: a. For repayment of old overdraft loans of Rs.40,62,419/-; b. For transferring to own Companies of Rs.44,42,000/-; c. For payment of interest on loan/overdraft and bank charges of Rs.8

AMIT ASHOK AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-2(2), INDORE

In the result, the quantum appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and penalty appeal of assesse is allowed

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

163,098.67 ₹ TOTAL 4,958,545.87 It would be clear from perusal of the above tables that the Assessee has majorly withdrawn funds for the following: a. For repayment of old overdraft loans of Rs.40,62,419/-; b. For transferring to own Companies of Rs.44,42,000/-; c. For payment of interest on loan/overdraft and bank charges of Rs.8