Search: penalty u/s 271

3 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Short Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)11 Penalty3 Section 1152 Section 143(3)2 Section 2502 Section 542 Addition to Income2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

capital had been invested by the assessee in shares, stated to be purchased as a matter of business policy as an investment company, which had not yielded any dividend income for the relevant year. The claim, though confirmed for disallowance by the Tribunal, had been allowed by it for AY 2000-01, and admitted in appeal by the High Court

BASANT GROVER,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), JABALPUR

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

ITA 93/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalebasant Grover, Vs Ito, 245/2, Behind Ashoka Ward-2(3), Apartment, Madanmahal, Jabalpur. Jabalpur-482002 (M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adbpg3734F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 68

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The capital gain since already calculated in excess with Rs. 6,13,000/-,and adding the same again u/s 68, would be taking same income twice; hence unjustified and bad in law. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Rs 12,55,692 CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming addition

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NFAC, ITO BALAGHAT, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 69A

terms of explanation attached to it without specifying the precise default and hence imposed penalty was vague, non-communicative and thus non Page 2 of 3 speaking defeating the purpose ’ of notice in relevance and therefore, the penalty. proceedings qua relevant addition is not sustainable in law as there was no valid initiation of penalty proceedings for relevant addition