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

10,47,680, after claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting tors 46,57,11,248. The case was selected for scrutiny. By following due process, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 26/02/2016, assessing total income of ` 23,51,05,202. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271

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

10,47,680, after claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting tors 46,57,11,248. The case was selected for scrutiny. By following due process, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 26/02/2016, assessing total income of ` 23,51,05,202. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 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 132(4) but is acted subsequently, that amounts to compliance with Explanation 5 (2) to section 271 (1)© and no penalty would be leviable under said section .. Both these questions have been replied in affirmative in the decision of the H on' ble Allahabad High Court. As per the decision mere non statement of manner which undisclosed was derived

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

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 132(4) but is acted subsequently, that amounts to compliance with Explanation 5 (2) to section 271(l)(c)and no penalty would be leviable under said section. Both these questions have been replied in affirmative in the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. As per the decision mere non statement of manner which undisclosed was derived

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

10. We further noticed that the AO has neither mentioned in the assessment order nor in his Penalty notice as to whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He has also not mentioned in the order that the penalty is initiated under explanation 5 of section 271

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

10. We further noticed that the AO has neither mentioned in the assessment order nor in his Penalty notice as to whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He has also not mentioned in the order that the penalty is initiated under explanation 5 of section 271

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)(c) of the Act. Penalty exigible only

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

10. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Assessee is a registered trust under Section 12A of the 1.T. Act, 1961 and also under the Public Trust Act. 2. In assessment order, addition is made by denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act and disallowing the expenses towards the object of the trust

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

10. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced below:– “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of ` 18,00,000 under section 271(1)(c). 2 Shri Rajesh Moolchand Dayaramani 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case provisions of section 271(1)(c) do not apply. 3. The learned

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

10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2.3 Aforestated levy of penalty was unsuccessfully assailed before first appellate authority in an appeal; consequently the assessee came in present appeal before Tribunal on twofold grounds that, the impugned levy of penalty is bad in law and without natural justice. 3. At the virtual hearing, the Ld. AR solidifying

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is deleted and the ground taken by the assessee is allowed. 5. As a result, appeal is allowed.” The assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 M/s. Tristar Retail Concepts Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.319/Nag./2024 5. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the penalty order passed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore, no such penalty could be levied." 2) DCIT, Chandigarh vs M/S Karan Empire Pvt. Ltd., Mohali on 16 February, 2017 (ITA No. ITA No.409/Chd/2011) which held as follows: Shri Mahesh Shankar Sorate ITA no.250/Nag./2018

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, 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

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