DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI & CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT 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

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Thus, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271

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

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Thus, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271

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 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") levied by the Assessing Officer. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Whether on the facts and in law, the order passed by learned CIT(A) u/s

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and penalty imposed of Rs. 6,32,768/- against it does not sustain anymore, and hence, the same is deleted.” 8. We find that the assessee claimed certain expenses which were disallowed by the Assessing Officer, consequently, the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer under section

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. section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 2724, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub- section (1) or clause (b) or clause

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

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

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 u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is leviable for non-compliance of notices issued during assessment proceedings, where the final assessment vide DIN & order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/1014566494(1) was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 6. The plain reading of applicable provision of clause (b) of s/s (1) of section

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Sections 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Sections 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

271(1)(b) of the Act dated 09.09.2022 and\nconfirmed the penalty amount of Rs. 20,000/- for non compliance of notice u/s\n142(1) of the Act dated 30.06.2021 and 24.11.2021\n6. In the result, the appeal is Partly Allowed.\n4.\nThe learned Authorised Representative prayed that deletion of penalty\nof 20,000, is unwarranted in his case

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 Ashok

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 Ashok

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 Ashok

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 Ashok

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

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF, GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 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 Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

u/s 200A is illegal and without jurisdiction.(iii)That in absence of provi. in the statute, the impugned order is invalid and bad in law. (iv)That the Ld. CIT- A has not considered the basic fact of charging of late fee with retrospective effect of the provi. of section 200A r.w.s. 234E and wrongly applied decisions of various Courts

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,WARDHA ROAD, NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF,GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 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 Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

u/s 200A is illegal and without jurisdiction.(iii)That in absence of provi. in the statute, the impugned order is invalid and bad in law. (iv)That the Ld. CIT- A has not considered the basic fact of charging of late fee with retrospective effect of the provi. of section 200A r.w.s. 234E and wrongly applied decisions of various Courts

INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -4, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI MAHESH SHANKAR SORATE , DARYAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

u/s 271E of I.T. Act 1961, which is a legal requirement in such cases. The appellant has strongly contested that since there is no satisfaction recorded in the order of assessment regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271E of the Act, therefore, the penalty proceedings itself is bad in law, and penalty could not have been levied. In this