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

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1 , REWA vs. BHANU PRATAP SINGH, REWA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2007-08 Income Tax Officer V. Bhanu Pratap Singh Ward 1 Nirmal Chhaya Khutehi Rewa Rewa Tan/Pan:Avpps0806G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.10/Jab/2017 [In Ita No.47/Jab/2017] Assessment Year:2007-08 Bhanu Pratap Singh V. Income Tax Officer Nirmal Chhaya Khutehi Ward 1 Rewa Rewa Tan/Pan:Avpps0806G (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

13. When aforesaid undisputed facts are examined in the light of the amended provisions contained under sub-section (2) and (3) of section 271AAA, the penalty in this case, if at all leviable, it should have been levied under section 271AAA (1) and not u/s 271

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 was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside on natural grounds too as CIT(A) fixed the appeal hearing dates in Corona Pandemic period and hence sufficient opportunity was not given to assessee to reply and present his case

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 was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside on natural grounds too as CIT(A) fixed the appeal hearing dates in Corona Pandemic period and hence sufficient opportunity was not given to assessee to reply and present his case

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 was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside on natural grounds too as CIT(A) fixed the appeal hearing dates in Corona Pandemic period and hence sufficient opportunity was not given to assessee to reply and present his case

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 was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside on natural grounds too as CIT(A) fixed the appeal hearing dates in Corona Pandemic period and hence sufficient opportunity was not given to assessee to reply and present his case

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 was, not correctly levied and may kindly be quashed/deleted. 4. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside on natural grounds too as CIT(A) fixed the appeal hearing dates in Corona Pandemic period and hence sufficient opportunity was not given to assessee to reply and present his case

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 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

271(1)(d) of the Income tax act1961 is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified and bad in law. (2) That The Ld CIT(A) misunderstood and Misconstructrued the provision of sub clause(v) of the clause (D) of the3 section 115(WB)(i) providing levy of Fringe benefit tax. The Sub-section(2) cover 'expenditure on advertisement by way of sign

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

271(1)(d) of the Income tax act1961 is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified and bad in law. (2) That The Ld CIT(A) misunderstood and Misconstructrued the provision of sub clause(v) of the clause (D) of the3 section 115(WB)(i) providing levy of Fringe benefit tax. The Sub-section(2) cover 'expenditure on advertisement by way of sign

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

271(1)(b) of I.T. Act 1961 has been passed imposing penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for no complying to notice u/s 142(1) of I.T. act 1961 dated 05/09/2019. 13. Notice u/s 142(1) was in the set aside assessment proceedings pursuance to order passed u/s 263 of I.T. Act 1961. We find that the information required

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

271(1)(b) of I.T. Act 1961 has been passed imposing penalty at Rs. 10,000/- for no complying to notice u/s 142(1) of I.T. act 1961 dated 05/09/2019. 13. Notice u/s 142(1) was in the set aside assessment proceedings pursuance to order passed u/s 263 of I.T. Act 1961. We find that the information required

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

section 250 of the Act. 11. The AO in the course of hearing proceedings has issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on various dates, whereas the assessee could not complied with the notices and the assessee has not disclosed the reasonable cause for non compliance to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act therefore

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of such investment. In fact, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing officer

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.

Section 2. BPLOO0860G Mining Office H 1,41,33,000 3,19,818 2010-11 Balaghat 3. NGPAO2538E ALTAF 94C 48,15,254 48,154 2010-11 Ahmed 3,67,972 Thus, the gross receipts of Rs.1,89,48,254/- based on information available on 26AS generated through system, but the assessee's version saying receipts are estimated as mentioned

JAINAM GROUP CHHINDWARA,CHHINDWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

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

13 March 2017.\nThe email id and mobile no. which are registered at the department portal were\nbelongs to him. All other partners were ignorant of such email id and password.\nAll notices related to this assessment are duly served through such mail id so the\npresent partners do not have knowledge of this assessment proceeding. Hence,\nthey

AVNISH KUMAR GUPTA,SIDHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, REWA, REWA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Center, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ for short) for assessment year (AY) 2009-10 vide his separate orders of even date (i.e., 22.09.2021). 2.1 Explaining the assessee’s case, Shri Purohit, the ld. Sr. Counsel, would submit that an ex parte assessment stands made in the instant