J.P TOBACO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE , SAGAR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

penalty u/s 271(1)(d) at Rs.1,86,934/- and levied the same. I therefore, confirm the penalty imposed by the AO atRs.1

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s

MANESSH SHARMA ,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s

MANESSH SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME OFFICER (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadale

271(c) of the I. T. Act i.e the Ld. CTT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 4,04,312/- u/s

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of I.T. Act 1961 has been passed imposing penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for no complying

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of I.T. Act 1961 has been passed imposing penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for no complying

VENKET RAMAN NARLWAR, THROUGHOUT L/H DR. PRATIMA RAMAN,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshradr. Pratima Raman (L/H Of V. Income Tax Officer-2 Venket Raman Narlwar Aayakar Bhawan, Sahkarita Maryadit) Jhinjhari, Katni-483501. Venket Building Lalita Bhawan, Sawarkar Ward, Katni-483501. Pan:Abhpn5492K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 12.02.2025 Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Page 2 of 3 (B.1) The Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s

SALEEM AHMED KHAN, BOON ELECTRONIC, CORPORATION MARKET NAUDARA BRIDGE,JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 2(1) , JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA No 88/Jab/2022 is not maintainable, ITA

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 12. Aggrieved by the penalty orders, the assessee has filed an appeal

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NFAC, ITO BALAGHAT, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless Appeal 1, Ward No. 9, Ram Mandir Center (Nfac) Road, Katangi, Balaghat (Mp)- Delhi (Jurisdiction Officer, 481445. Income Tax Officer, Balaghat (Mp)-110001. Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 23.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

271(1)(c) of IT Act as passed by AO by simply rejecting the application for condonation in filling appeal and ignoring the fact that the impugned penalty order under appeal is not tenable under law as the additions in the quantum proceedings did not establish the default attributed to the appellant for which penalty is livable u/s

J.P TOBACCO PRODUCT PVT. LTD.,DAMOH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. J.P.Tobacco Products Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar. Damoh (M.P.). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) levied by Assessing Officer (in short

RAJ KUMAR KHATIK,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, SAGAR, SAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleraj Kumar Khatik, Vs Ito, Fresh Vegetable Commission Ward-3, Sagar Agent, Sabji Mandi, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh-470002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cefpk7387R Assessee By Shri Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, also remained non-complied and therefore, the AO levied penalty of Rs.10

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 187 & 188/Jab/2016 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Acit Circle-Sagar. Pathariya Phatak, Damoh (M.P.) Vs. Pan No. Aaacj 7141 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Saad Kidwai, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2023

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). In the grounds

J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 187 & 188/Jab/2016 Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 J.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Acit Circle-Sagar. Pathariya Phatak, Damoh (M.P.) Vs. Pan No. Aaacj 7141 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Saad Kidwai, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2023

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). In the grounds

M/S SHRI KALYANIKA INFRA ,JABALPUR vs. D.C.I.T.,, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty levied by Ld AO u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The levy of penalty is illegal for various reasons, which

M/S TARUN DEVCON ,JABALPUR vs. D.C.I.T.,, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty levied by Ld AO u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The levy of penalty is illegal for various reasons, which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SHEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(c) of I.T. Act is initiated separately.” I.T.A. No.91/Jab/2019 C.O.No.01/Jab/2020 5 Assessment Year:2011-12 5. The learned