SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR RAI,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2 , KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1

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)

penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by the assessing officer merely on the ground that the correct section was section

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

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

HARISH CHAND SONI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD(1)1, JABALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 4/Jab/2018 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2008-09   Harish Chand Soni, Income Tax Officer, 565, Kotwali Ward Tammarhai, Vs Ward 1 (1), Jabalpur, M.P. Jabalpur Pan : Azvps 8959 C / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Pd Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 29.11.2017 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Jbp/Ito W-1(1)/Jbp/208/2011-12, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Framed On 30.03.2011 By The Ito, Ward 1(1), Jabalpur.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.30,000/-, which has been levied by the Assessing Officer on the assessee for not declaring the income on the Harish Chand Soni Vs. ITO AY : 2008-09 turnover carried out through Axis Bank. Learned Counsel has referred and relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the 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

section 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 271 C of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) has erred

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

section 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 271 C of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) has erred

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

section 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 271 C of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) has erred

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

section 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 271 C of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) has erred

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

section 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 271 C of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) has erred

BANPRABHA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. NIRMAL CHHAYA, BEHIND BLOCK OFFICE, KHUTEHI, REWA-486001,REWA vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

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

271 , section 271A, 22 [ section 271AA,] section 271B 23[, section 271BA], 24 [ section 271BB,] section 271C , 25[ section 271CA , ] section 27 1D, section 271E, 26 [ section 271F, 27 [ section 271FA,] 28 [ section 271FB,] 3 Banprabha Real Estate P Ltd. 29 [ section 271G,]] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub -section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A

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

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

section 147 of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire on 20.09.2017, fixing the case for hearing on 27.09.2017, but neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any compliance made till 19.10.2017. 2 | P a g e Consequently

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR RAWAT, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

c)), nor of it being in fact not a case of acceptance of loan or deposit in cash, constituting a default u/s. 269SS, which could be liable 4 | P a g e C.O.No. 02/JAB/2022 ITO vs. Sudhir Kumar Rawat for penalty u/s. 271D. He decides the assessee’s appeal on his without prejudice ground, i.e., of the amount repaid

M/S ANUSHREE ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) and u/s. 143(3) 1 ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO read s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and that dated 13/11/2017 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c

M/S.ANUSHRI ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

section 143(3) and u/s. 143(3) 1 ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO read s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and that dated 13/11/2017 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c

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

u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The levy of penalty is illegal for various reasons, which inter alia includes the reason that the LAO was not clear as to for which limb of section

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

u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The levy of penalty is illegal for various reasons, which inter alia includes the reason that the LAO was not clear as to for which limb of section