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

addition of Rs.5,55,360/-. In view of the above the AO has rightly calculated the minimum 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.1,86,934/-.” 4. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO in the penalty order

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

additions for non deduction of TDS have already been deleted by the CIT(A) followed by dismissal of revenue appeal by Hon'ble ITAT which clearly proves that the assessee. had not defaulted in any of TDS deduction. Accordingly Penalty u/s 271 C was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order

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

additions for non deduction of TDS have already been deleted by the CIT(A) followed by dismissal of revenue appeal by Hon'ble ITAT which clearly proves that the assessee. had not defaulted in any of TDS deduction. Accordingly Penalty u/s 271 C was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order

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

additions for non deduction of TDS have already been deleted by the CIT(A) followed by dismissal of revenue appeal by Hon'ble ITAT which clearly proves that the assessee. had not defaulted in any of TDS deduction. Accordingly Penalty u/s 271 C was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order

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

additions for non deduction of TDS have already been deleted by the CIT(A) followed by dismissal of revenue appeal by Hon'ble ITAT which clearly proves that the assessee. had not defaulted in any of TDS deduction. Accordingly Penalty u/s 271 C was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order

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

additions for non deduction of TDS have already been deleted by the CIT(A) followed by dismissal of revenue appeal by Hon'ble ITAT which clearly proves that the assessee. had not defaulted in any of TDS deduction. Accordingly Penalty u/s 271 C was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order

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.

income and therefore 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 CIT(A), while restricting the addition

PRADEEP SHARMA,SAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KATNI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

additional income totalling to Rs.40,40,535/- was surrendered by the appellant. Return of income for the relevant year was filed by the Appellant on 17/10/2017 declaring total income of Rs.47,33,190/- which included the income surrendered during survey. The assessment for the relevant year was made u/s 143(3) vide order dated 17/12/2019 accepting the income shown

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

addition of Rs. 1,00,000/ - out of various expenses claimed in profit and loss account. 8. Notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 was issued on 07/01/2016. The reasons recorded indicate that - Notice u/s 148 was issued for escapement of income for no disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 for interest paid without deduction

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

addition of Rs. 1,00,000/ - out of various expenses claimed in profit and loss account. 8. Notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 was issued on 07/01/2016. The reasons recorded indicate that - Notice u/s 148 was issued for escapement of income for no disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 for interest paid without deduction

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: -

penalty is livable u/s 271(1)(c) .” (B) In this case, assessment order dated 20.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,12,22,600/- as against the returned income of Nil. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.06.2010 amounting to Rs.2,72,850/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. On further appeal, Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty observing as under:- 7.1.3.DECISION:-“I have carefully considered the submission put forth including the case laws relied upon & the documents 3 | P a g e J.P.Tobacco Product Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT furnished

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

income of Rs.40,05,190/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Act dated 10.12.2019. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, submissions of the assessee and findings of the AO but has confirmed the action

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable in law and facts. 2. Penalty Confirmed Without Establishing Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) without demonstrating that the appellant had either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The appellant had no willful intent or knowledge

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable in law and facts. 2. Penalty Confirmed Without Establishing Concealment or Inaccurate Particulars The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) without demonstrating that the appellant had either concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The appellant had no willful intent or knowledge

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). In the grounds raised in both the assessment years, the assessee has challenged levy of JB Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA Nos. 187 & 188/JAB/2016 ITA the penalty by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also raised the penalty by the Assessing Officer. The assessee

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). In the grounds raised in both the assessment years, the assessee has challenged levy of JB Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA Nos. 187 & 188/JAB/2016 ITA the penalty by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also raised the penalty by the Assessing Officer. The assessee

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

u/s 142(1). The penalty of Rs. 50000/- should be quashed in toto. 4. That The applicant reserves his right to raise additional ground or grounds of appeal those may arise at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are, that the return of income of the assessee for the assessment year