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: -

3 (B.1) The Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, amounting to Rs.10,000/- for failure of the assessee (L/h Dr. Pratima Raman) to comply with the notice dated 26.03.2018. In response to the show cause notice of the Assessing Officer dated 31.05.2018, the assessee did not reply the show cause notice. Thereafter, the Assessing

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

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

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(3

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 of reassessment order that there is no claim for interest payment in Profit & Loss Account. Thus there remain no escapement of income in terms of reasons recorded. Reassessment was framed on income determined in original assessment on 26/02/2014. 9. Considering the above factual position in this regard and their being no claim of interest in Profit & Loss Accoun

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

3 of reassessment order that there is no claim for interest payment in Profit & Loss Account. Thus there remain no escapement of income in terms of reasons recorded. Reassessment was framed on income determined in original assessment on 26/02/2014. 9. Considering the above factual position in this regard and their being no claim of interest in Profit & Loss Accoun

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

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

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, sub-section

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

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 levied u/s 271(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for concealment of income/inaccurate particulars of fringe benefit of tax (FBT). The issue involved in both the appeals is ITA No.183 & 184/Jab/2018 J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt.Ltd. vs DCIT common, therefore both the appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order