JITENDRA SHARMA ,INDORE vs. JCIT(INTL TAXATION) , AHMEDABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2015-16

u/s 271(1)(c) of Act at Rs. 5,15,000/- in each case for the alleged wrong deduction of tax at source in the transaction of Shri Jitendra Sharma & Ors ITA Nos. 500 to 502/Ind/2018 purchase of immoveable property. As grounds raised in all these three appeals are similar, for convenience we are reproducing below the grounds raised

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195

NAJMA PATHAN,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DEWAS

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 and penalty orders passed u/s 270A, 271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. TPA. No. 265/Ind/2015: REVENUE`s APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 Ground:No.1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon`ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai was justified in deletion

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. TPA. No. 265/Ind/2015: REVENUE`s APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 Ground:No.1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon`ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai was justified in deletion

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. TPA. No. 265/Ind/2015: REVENUE`s APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 Ground:No.1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon`ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai was justified in deletion

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against The Appellant. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice, to each other unless mentioned specifically. TPA. No. 265/Ind/2015: REVENUE`s APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 Ground:No.1: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon`ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai was justified in deletion

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDA DEVI TAPARIA,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also\ninitiated separately for concealment of particulars of\nincome as mentioned above\".\nFurther an addition of Rs.2,30,820 of STCG was also made to\nincome which was Shown as NIL in ROI. It may be noted that the\nappellant has accepted the said addition and same has not been\nagitated before

LATE SHRI RAMANAND TAPARIA TH/LH CHANDADEVI TAPARIA ,INDORE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTREQ, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is also\ninitiated separately for concealment of particulars of\nincome as mentioned above\".\nFurther an addition of Rs.2,30,820 of STCG was also made to\nincome which was Shown as NIL in ROI. It may be noted that the\nappellant has accepted the said addition and same has not been\nagitated before

MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA,KHANDWA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL) UJJAIN, UJJAIN

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

DCIT- (CENTRAL)-3, INDORE vs. MRS. JATINDER KAUR BHATIA, KHANDWA

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

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

271(1)(c) are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17. I am also satisfied that the assessee has under-reported his income for A.Y. 2017-18. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated in the matter for A.Y. 2017- 18. Further, in view of the provisions of section 271AAB

SHRI SUNIL SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE -2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

SHRI PRABHAT SOJATIA,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 2(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in maintaining charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C. 2. Case of the assessee was selected by Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for scrutiny assessment. The assessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called