ACIT, CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTT. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD , CHANDRAPUR

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

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Deletion of penalty - Tribunal deleted penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPRATIVE BANK LIMTED , CHANDRAPUR

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

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Deletion of penalty - Tribunal deleted penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on assessee

ASHWINKUMAR KAILASHCHAND BAJORIYA,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1-1, AKLO

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 060/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ashwinkumar Kailashchand Bajoriya, Murtizapur Road, Akola - 444 004 Pan: Abjpb6524E . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

penalty of ₹10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2.3 Aforestated levy of penalty was unsuccessfully

VIKESH CHATURBHUJ AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD -4(1), NAGPUR

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

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On mere perusal of the order of penalty u/s 271

BHAKTVATSAL SADGURU YOGIRAJ VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE MAHARAJ TRUST,WARDHA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty imposed of Rs. 6,32,768/- against

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

271(1)(c) and hence it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Further

GIRDHARILAL MOTILAL AGRAWAL,BULDANA vs. ITO WARD-1, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

penalty should not be levied u/s 271(1)(c). Reliance is placed on following: Penalty is discretionary, not automatic

MOHD ZUBAIR ASHARAFI,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs. 30,000/- for\nnon compliance of three notices u/s

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed". 3. The assessment orders passed by the AO at Ambala have been called for and annexed to this submission. 4. The Assessing Officer, while passing

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

NAV VIDYA NIKETAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD 2 EXEMP NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393 & 397/Nag/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2010-11 Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan The Income Tax Officer, Sanstha, V Ward-2 Exemption, 1, Ambapethdhabaliya S Nagpur. Niwas, Ambapeth, Amravati – 444601 Pan: Aabtn1915G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ca(Ar) Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Separate Penalty Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Both Dated 13.06.2017 For A.Y.2012-

271(l)(c) even when the quantum proceedings were subjudiced and it was requested by the appellant to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of quantum appeal.2. 2. Whether the penalty u/s

NAV VIDYA NIKETAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD2 EXEMP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393 & 397/Nag/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2010-11 Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan The Income Tax Officer, Sanstha, V Ward-2 Exemption, 1, Ambapethdhabaliya S Nagpur. Niwas, Ambapeth, Amravati – 444601 Pan: Aabtn1915G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ca(Ar) Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Separate Penalty Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Both Dated 13.06.2017 For A.Y.2012-

271(l)(c) even when the quantum proceedings were subjudiced and it was requested by the appellant to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of quantum appeal.2. 2. Whether the penalty u/s

VIJAYKUMAR SHREEVISHNU TOSHNIWAL,AKOLA vs. ITO WARD-3, AKOLA

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is sought to be imposed is bad in law and consequent penalty levied

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

penalty of ` 59,160, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying on the business of selling rice through milling with the help of system of integrated handling, storage and transportation. According to the assessee, the system of integrated handling, storage and transportation was carried as mentioned in Sunita

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

penalty of ` 59,160, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying on the business of selling rice through milling with the help of system of integrated handling, storage and transportation. According to the assessee, the system of integrated handling, storage and transportation was carried as mentioned in Sunita

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

penalty of ` 59,160, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying on the business of selling rice through milling with the help of system of integrated handling, storage and transportation. According to the assessee, the system of integrated handling, storage and transportation was carried as mentioned in Sunita

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-5, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

penalty of ` 59,160, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying on the business of selling rice through milling with the help of system of integrated handling, storage and transportation. According to the assessee, the system of integrated handling, storage and transportation was carried as mentioned in Sunita

ASHA VINOD TATTE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271D is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 7. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.‖ 3. The core issue arising out of the aforesaid grounds of appeal relates to levy of penalty of ` 6,51,000, under Section 271