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

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. (4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the levy of penalty is perverse unjustified and uncalled for.” 2 | P a g e J.P.Tobacco Product Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessment u/s 143

RAJESH SINGH,REWA vs. ITO WARD -1,REWA, REWA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty of Rs. 30,000/- demanded U/S 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 which is not based on any concrete finding but was entirely estimated, arbitrary, assumptions & Presumptions and bad in law. 3- That the Assessee crave leaves to raise any other grounds on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order passed

RAJESH SINGH,REWA vs. ITO WARD-1 REWA, REWA

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.128 & 129/Jab/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 Rajesh Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S Pharma Deal Agency, Ward No.8, Ward-1, Rewa, M.P. Mauganj, Distt. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Atrps5702K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty of Rs. 30,000/- demanded U/S 271(1)(b) of IT Act, 1961 which is not based on any concrete finding but was entirely estimated, arbitrary, assumptions & Presumptions and bad in law. 3- That the Assessee crave leaves to raise any other grounds on or before the date of hearing to prove that the order passed

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

143(3) of I.T. Act 1961 on 26/02/2014 by ITO, Ward - 1, Katni after due examination of audited financial statements and books of account. A.O. has made 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

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

143(3) of I.T. Act 1961 on 26/02/2014 by ITO, Ward - 1, Katni after due examination of audited financial statements and books of account. A.O. has made 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

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

1) includes any income referred to in section 68 , section 69, section 69A , section 69B , section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (a) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to section 68 , section 69, section 69A , section 69B , section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty

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: -

143(3) & not 147 that too on return income. Henceforth, in lieu if judicial pronouncement of supra in similar facts the penalty under section 271(1)(b) may kindly be deleted. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case ld CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that assessment order was bad in law. 4. The appellant craves leave

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being levied that is whether it was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income etc. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and had no authority to ignore binding decision of Hon'ble MP HC in the case of PCIT Vs. Kulwant singh Bhatia

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

section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being levied that is whether it was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income etc. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and had no authority to ignore binding decision of Hon'ble MP HC in the case of PCIT Vs. Kulwant singh Bhatia

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.

143(2) was issued before the completion of the assessment the Hon'ble CIT(A) should have held that the assessment order of ld AO is bad in law. 4. Considering the fact that the assessee has produced on 15.10.2018 books of account and supporting bills, royalty payment challan etc, in respect of expenses of Rs.89,72,239/- debited under

ABHISHEK PUROHIT, SAGAR,SAGAR vs. ITO WARD (3) SAGAR, SAGAR

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Abhishek Purohit, Vs. Ito, Kotwali Road, Ward (3), Behind Putrishala School, Sagar Sagar. Pan : Asbpp 4859M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023

Sections 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time. However, there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also proceeded to impose penalty u/s. 271

AMBIKA CHARAN DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be initiated against the assessee.” 8. Considering the above facts, it is found that the Assessing Officer had made enquiries on both the issues and satisfied with the evidence produced before him and found that no addition is required to be made. The Pr.CIT cannot propose to substitute its opinion

JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH BAGRI,SATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD , , SATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

u/s 143(3)r.w.s147 and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised fallowing grounds of appeal are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the lower authorities under sec. 143(3) read with section 147 and under sec. 250 of the Income

VISHAL DATT,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

143(3) of the Act vide assessment order I.T.A. No.134/JAB/2025 Assessment Year:2014-15 2 dated 13/12/2016 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.33,40,020/-, making various additions. The Assessing Officer also passed penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 21/06/2017 and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,10,964/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee