DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR vs. SMT. SHEHLA AHMED , KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-1 V. Smt. Shehla Ahmad Kanpur 376-C, Allied Street Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.09/Lkw/2018 [In Ita No.181/Lkw/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Shehla Ahmad V. Dy. Cit-1 376-C, Allied Street Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Swarn Singh, Fca Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur, Dated 1/12/2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.22,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Undisclosed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) and assessment order. Thus, penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) and assessment order. Thus, penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) and assessment order. Thus, penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) and assessment order. Thus, penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes

M/S NARAINA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 (4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-2014

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) towards addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. According

M/S NAIYER ASSOCIATES,SITAPUR vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

271(1)(c) is not imposable. 7. Under these circumstances, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Naresh Chand Agarwal vs. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 514 (All) has held as under: "Penalty proceedings—Books rejected—Profit estimated—No evidence of concealment— Penalty initiated—Leviability—Original return was filed declaring income—After notice, assessment was completed u/s

M/S NAIYER ASSOCIATES,SITAPUR vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

271(1)(c) is not imposable. 7. Under these circumstances, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Naresh Chand Agarwal vs. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 514 (All) has held as under: "Penalty proceedings—Books rejected—Profit estimated—No evidence of concealment— Penalty initiated—Leviability—Original return was filed declaring income—After notice, assessment was completed u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

penalty amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

penalty amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

penalty amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

penalty amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

penalty amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

penalty amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

penalty notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) whereby penalty proceedings are initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

ACIT-2(1)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. UP STATE YARN COMPANY LIMITED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit-2(1)(1) Up State Yarn Company V. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Limited Uttar Pradesh-208001. 1 Smith Square, 14/72, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh- 208001. Pan:Aaacu1674K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 11 2024 O R D E R

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty amounting to Rs.70,59,100/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, taking

AJAY KUMAR NIRWAN,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were also initiated. Vide order dated 19/03/2019, penalty amounting to Rs.1

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LIMITED MAHOLI AYYUBI CHAMBER, RANIGANJ, LAKHIMPUR KHERI-262001,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR-NEW, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act. (4) The penalty imposed is highly excessive, contrary to the facts

SMT. DIVYA AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. In this case proceedings u/s 147 were initiated issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Later on, notices u/s 142(1) was issued fixing compliance on 02/06/2016. On the date fixed, neither anybody attended nor filed any written submissions, therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice penalty