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

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

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 by Shri

SHATRUGHAN SHARMA,INDORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL.TAXATION), AHMEDABAD

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

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 by Shri

BHARAT SHARMA,INDORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL.TAXATION), AHMEDABAD

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

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 by Shri

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

271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that

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

271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that

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

271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that

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

271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that

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

271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that

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

271-F,272A(1)(d), 271B & 271AAC(1) respectively for A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 195 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.75/Ind/2024 and 84 days for filing the appeal in ITANo.76 to ITANo.75 to 80/Ind/2024 Najma Pathan 80/Ind/2024. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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