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

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

2. The issue raised in this appeal relates to levy of 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

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

2. The issue raised in this appeal relates to levy of 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

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

2. The issue raised in this appeal relates to levy of 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

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

2. The issue raised in this appeal relates to levy of 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

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for 27 Gajanand Financial Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.126/Nag./2025 concealment of particulars of income, of the Income Tax Act is hereby initiated separately.” vi) There is no quarrel to the proposition that the Assessing Officer had definitely come into an opinion that Tapadia Polyester Pvt. Ltd. has introduced its own unaccounted income

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCITACIT CIRCLE-3 , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned

BHAVESH SURESH SEJPAL,AKOT vs. ITO WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

2)(vii)(b) of the Act and hence the case was re–opened under section 147 of the Act, as the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued under section 148 of the Act in response to which, on 21/05/2021, the assessee again

MAHESHKUMAR HARGOVIND GOYAL,NAGPUR vs. WARD 1(2), NAGPUR

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

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

2) and 142(1) on 22.12.2018 and passed the order on 22.12.2018 itself. Thus, the order was passed without giving proper opportunity of being heard. 4. The Assessing Officer has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. The learned CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GONDIA vs. SHRI SATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA , GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank