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

u/s 36(1)(viia) of I.T. Act 1961 on account of non- provisions of the same in books of account. The relevant observations from the decision are reproduced herein under for reference. "Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section Income Tax Act?" 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

u/s 36(1)(viia) of I.T. Act 1961 on account of non- provisions of the same in books of account. The relevant observations from the decision are reproduced herein under for reference. "Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section Income Tax Act?" 271

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

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

20,47,792/- was disallowed and resultantly allowed the appeal of the appellant. Therefore, the penalty proceedings initiated 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

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

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 on perusal of profit & Loss account assessee has claimed loss on Sale of Fixed Assets of Rs.4,02,50,000/- which resulted in loss of Rs.4,20

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

20,000, which is other than by way of Account Payee Cheque or Account Payee Demand Draft hence, it is in contravention to the provisions of section 269T of the Act. Accordingly, the learned JCIT levied penalty under section 271E of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. The case

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-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (―the Act‖) for the violation of provisions

PRASAD DIPAKRAO BELORKAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, YAVVATMAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271D of the Act cannot be said to be irregular. The description of receipt of cash in the sale deed only suggest that the appellant had entered into a transaction and paid an amount of Rs.5,08,000/- against the transfer of immovable property. Whether the cash deposited in the bank account is the same amount appearing

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

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

20-9-2010 C to give more and more clarity on 80P deduction. Therefore, the assessee is assessed as status of AOP. From aforesaid discussion it is held that assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P (1) of I.T. Act and claiming disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued

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

20-9-2010 C to give more and more clarity on 80P deduction. Therefore, the assessee is assessed as status of AOP. From aforesaid discussion it is held that assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P (1) of I.T. Act and claiming disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued

SMT. RADHADEVI MADHUSUDAN JAJODIA,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

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 proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified and unwarranted.” 3. Facts in brief:– The assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of plot development. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29/11/2014, declaring total income at ` 35,60,840. The case was picked up for scrutiny through CASS

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

penalty 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

penalty 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

penalty 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

penalty 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

penalty 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