JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak vs. ACIT (OSD) ITA no. 368/Nag./2023 7] The assessee craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. The facts of the case of the assessee as culled out from

DCIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S TRISTER RETAIL CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, department’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Further on perusal of profit & Loss account assessee has claimed loss on Sale of Fixed Assets of Rs.4,02,50,000/- which resulted in loss of Rs.4,20,81,645/-. During the course of assessment proceedings by issuing show cause notice dated 04/12/2017, assessee was asked to explain why loss on sale of fixed assets

BHAVIKA GUNWANT PATEL,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

penalty of ` 33,255, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) as well. The learned CIT(A), while confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c), observed as under:– “5.1 This appeal is being directed against the order u/s 271

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

capital gain loss. (6) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty u/s. 271

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

capital gain loss. (6) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty u/s. 271

SHRI. ABDULLABHAI HASANALI,,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,-II, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

capital gain loss. (6) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty u/s. 271

M/S FUEL CORPORATION OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

gainfully refer to the provisions of section 271AAA : “271AAA. Penalty where search has been initiated.—(1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed

penalty\nproceedings a/s 272.4(2)(c) of the L.T. Act, 1961 and to take other necessary\nsteps under the law.\"\n5.1 The AR of-the assessee later on submitted copies of assessment order\npassed by ACIT(CC)-1(4). Nagpur, u/s 143(3) and stated that the undersigned\nhad no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 8, NAGPUR vs. M/S V.D. KANAL, NAGPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing in accurate particulars of income.” 4. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(Appeals) observed as under : “”” 5.2 In appeal before me, appellant has requested that if books of accounts are found defective, then the estimated addition can be made and has pleaded that appellant being a civil contractor

M/S V.D.KANAL,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8, NAGPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing in accurate particulars of income.” 4. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(Appeals) observed as under : “”” 5.2 In appeal before me, appellant has requested that if books of accounts are found defective, then the estimated addition can be made and has pleaded that appellant being a civil contractor

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6 Tajshree Autowheels Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.400/Nag./2024 6. Consequent upon the assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee being aggrieved carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee furnished

DAYAL AGRO PRODUCTS LTD,AKOLA vs. JCIT, AKOLA RANGE, AKOLA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, there is always a possibility of contingent loss and damage for which the appellant is aggrieved. We find merit in the submission and allowed the process to ride the cycle of adjudication. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT DR submitted that the order of CIT(A) is very

MRS. DEVYANI AJIT MULIK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

capital gain shown by the assessee in the return of income and as calculated by the AO. AO also initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Vide order dated 28.06.2019, AO levied penalty u/s. 271

SHRI PRAVEEN MANOHAR GHODKHANDE,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2),, NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

u/s 271(1)(c). Facts of the case decide whether such a belief could be treated as bonafide or not. In other words, it can safely be held that if an assessee, disregarding all the relevant facts and circumstances, interprets a section that suits its interest then such interpretation cannot be held as bonafide belief. In the garb

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1) was filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation u/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in the case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case