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

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

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

M/S NAVAL K AGARWAL,NAGPUR vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271AAA of the Act we find a lot of similarity therein under which penalty is not attracted in a case of search on the undisclosed income. As per Explanation 5 to section 271 (1

M/S ABHIJIT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2007–08

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

u/s 143(3) r/w section 153A of the Act. Assessee agreed to pay tax to buy peace and avoid litigation. Assessee has not claimed that entry in document represents its income. Explanation 5A is not applicable in the case of assessee hence, the assessee cannot be visited with penalty under section 271(1

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

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

u/s 271(l)(c) was levied held that it is not required to specify the manner in which the income was earned in respect of the amount offered to tax in the return of income filed to search action by paying taxes thereon for adopting immunity from penalty under Explanation 5 of section 271(1

SHRI RAJESH MOOLCHAND DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority, wherein, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee feeling aggrieved filed appeal before us. 6. Before us, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted by way of written submission, which is reproduced herein below:– “A) On merits

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

CHANDRA SURESH KOTHARI,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

Section 271(1)(c) and hence the said penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) is not justified and is directed to be deleted

CHANDRA SURESH KOTHARI,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

Section 271(1)(c) and hence the said penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) is not justified and is directed to be deleted

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