DILEEP KUMAR OJHA,SITAPUR vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c).” ITA. No.459/LKW/2024 1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. Authorities below u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 148. 2. On the facts and circumstances

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 provisions provided u/s 271(1)(c) to hold that non disclosure of deeming dividends in the return of income would amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find force in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that deeming fiction provided u/s 2(22)(e) for making addition

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

Income” as per details given in the Penalty Order. Hence, Ld. A. O. has not imposed the Penalty on the basis of the Assessment Order. Accordingly, the. present Penalty of Rs. 20,45,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes of Law. 3. The Ld. Authorities below failed to appreciate that addition

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

Income” as per details given in the Penalty Order. Hence, Ld. A. O. has not imposed the Penalty on the basis of the Assessment Order. Accordingly, the. present Penalty of Rs. 20,45,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes of Law. 3. The Ld. Authorities below failed to appreciate that addition

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

Income” as per details given in the Penalty Order. Hence, Ld. A. O. has not imposed the Penalty on the basis of the Assessment Order. Accordingly, the. present Penalty of Rs. 20,45,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes of Law. 3. The Ld. Authorities below failed to appreciate that addition

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

Income” as per details given in the Penalty Order. Hence, Ld. A. O. has not imposed the Penalty on the basis of the Assessment Order. Accordingly, the. present Penalty of Rs. 20,45,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of I. T. Act is bad in the eyes of Law. 3. The Ld. Authorities below failed to appreciate that addition

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years

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

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) could not be imposed on basis of estimating sales & making addition by applying net profit rate—Moreover, it may be mentioned that no finding of deliberate concealment of income

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

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) could not be imposed on basis of estimating sales & making addition by applying net profit rate—Moreover, it may be mentioned that no finding of deliberate concealment of income

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default (Addition

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default (Addition

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default (Addition

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default (Addition

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default (Addition

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default (Addition

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are being initiated separately for this default (Addition

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 that the additions made by the AO had been confirmed in the appellate proceedings. The reliance is also placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277/174