M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

271, Section 271A, Section 271AA, Section 271B, Section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, Section 271CA, Section 271D, Section 271E, Section 271F, Section 271FA, Section 271FB, Section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of Subsection (1) or Subsection (2) of Section 272A, Sub section (1) of Section 272AA, or Subsection (1) of Section 272BB or Subsection (1A) of Section 272BB

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

271, Section 271A, Section 271AA, Section 271B, Section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, Section 271CA, Section 271D, Section 271E, Section 271F, Section 271FA, Section 271FB, Section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of Subsection (1) or Subsection (2) of Section 272A, Sub section (1) of Section 272AA, or Subsection (1) of Section 272BB or Subsection (1A) of Section 272BB

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

271, Section 271A, Section 271AA, Section 271B, Section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, Section 271CA, Section 271D, Section 271E, Section 271F, Section 271FA, Section 271FB, Section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of Sub- section (1) or Subsection (2) of Section 272A, Sub section (1) of Section 272AA, or Subsection (1) of Section 272BB or Subsection (1A) of Section 272BB

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

271, Section 271A, Section 271AA, Section 271B, Section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, Section 271CA, Section 271D, Section 271E, Section 271F, Section 271FA, Section 271FB, Section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of Sub- section (1) or Subsection (2) of Section 272A, Sub section (1) of Section 272AA, or Subsection (1) of Section 272BB or Subsection (1A) of Section 272BB

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

271, Section 271A, Section 271AA, Section 271B, Section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, Section 271CA, Section 271D, Section 271E, Section 271F, Section 271FA, Section 271FB, Section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of Sub- section (1) or Subsection (2) of Section 272A, Sub section (1) of Section 272AA, or Subsection (1) of Section 272BB or Subsection (1A) of Section 272BB

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

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

271, Section 271A, Section 271AA, Section 271B, Section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, Section 271CA, Section 271D, Section 271E, Section 271F, Section 271FA, Section 271FB, Section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of Sub- section (1) or Subsection (2) of Section 272A, Sub section (1) of Section 272AA, or Subsection (1) of Section 272BB or Subsection (1A) of Section 272BB

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,INDORE vs. JCIT TDS INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniidea Cellular Ltd. Jcit 139-140 Electronics Complex Indore Vs. Pardeshipura Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaacb 2100P Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2023

271, Section 271A, Section 271AA, Section 271B, Section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, Section 271CA, Section 271D, Section 271E, Section 271F, Section 271FA, Section 271FB, Section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of Sub- section (1) or Subsection (2) of Section 272A, Sub section (1) of Section 272AA, or Subsection (1) of Section 272BB or Subsection (1A) of Section 272BB

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

Appeals are allowed

271,\nno penalty shall be\nimposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any\nfailure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was\nreasonable cause for the said failure.\"\nTherefore, having regard to the provision of section 273B, we delete the\npenalty imposed by AO. The assessee succeeds in this appeal

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

Appeals are allowed

271, no penalty shall be\nimposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any\nfailure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was\nreasonable cause for the said failure.\"\nTherefore, having regard to the provision of section 273B, we delete the\npenalty imposed by AO. The assessee succeeds in this appeal

ILIYAS,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiiliyas, Nfac, बनाम/ 56, Khargone Road Bedia, Delhi Vs. Khargone

271(1)(b) of the IT Act is initiated separately for non compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act is initiated separately. Penalty proceeding u/s 271B of the Act is initiated separately. 5. Final computation of taxable income: Page 7 of 12 Iliyas ITA No. 445/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 Sl.No. Description Amount

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

271F and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act also separately. 2.3 It is to be mentioned here that the appellant did not file appeal against the assessment order u/s 144 of the IT Act dated 04.12.2017. Hence, the AO proceeded with the penalty proceeding initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. As the appellant failed to respond

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

271F and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act also separately. 2.3 It is to be mentioned here that the appellant did not file appeal against the assessment order u/s 144 of the IT Act dated 04.12.2017. Hence, the AO proceeded with the penalty proceeding initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. As the appellant failed to respond

HIRAMANI AJIT KUMAR JAIN,RATLAM vs. ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Hiramani Ajit Kumar Jain, Income Tax Officer-1, 77, Tashakand Marg, Ratlam Vs. Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agcph3330A Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2024 O R D E R

penalty orders u/s 271(1) (b) & 271F. 2 Shri Hiramani Ajit Kumar Jain 1.2 That the ADDL/JCIT(A) 2 Hyderabad has erred in passing order without application of mind. 1.3 That the ADDL/JCIT(A) 2 Hyderabad has wrongly drawn inference that Assessee has availed Vivad se Viswas Scheme against the demand raised through re-assessment order dated 30/11/2018. 2. That

ASHISH DAULATRAM SARIYA,UJJAIN vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way second appeal. The assessee is aggrieved by order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1069852312(1) dated 22.10.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A), passed U/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order

SHREE TEKCHANDJI MAHARAJ TRUST,UJJAIN vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, UJJAIN

Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) and U/s 271F of the Act was initiated\n5.1. On going through the aforesaid submission of the assessee it\ncan be seen that the assessee has stated that the trust was\nreceiving corpus donations for construction of Dharamshala and\nevidence of the donation and trust registration had been\nsubmitted. However, it can be seen that

KUSUM GEORGE JACOB,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

u/s 271 (1) (c), 271F & 271 (1) (b)\nof the Act. Copy of such penalty order is marked as Annexure (A/4)\nImmediately upon gaining such knowledge, she contacted another legal\ncounsel and took prompt steps to obtain relevant records and prefer the\npresent Appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal without any further delay.\n10. That, the delay of 342 days

INDIRA BAI JINDAL,KHARGONE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

u/s 147 of the act which is bad in law. Indira Bai Jindal vs. ITO A.Y. 2013-14 3. The Assessee was passed away during the assessment proceedings and response was made by legal representative even then the Assessment proceedings was continued in the name of deceased assessee and Order was also made in the name of deceased person which

ROHIT GOYAL,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3), INDORE, INDORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Goyal Ito, Ward 5(3) A 2904, Oberoi Woods, Mohan Indore Gokhale Road, Goregaon East Vs. Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akupg2685D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024

penalty proceeding u/s 271F, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the acts. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before of hearing.” 2. The ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the notices issued by the AO u/s 148 of the Act is invalid