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

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

35,000 10.08.2012 Cash 41. – do – 1,14,000 11.08.2012 Cash 42. – do – 2,50,000 21.08.2012 Cash 43. – do – 50,000 23.08.2012 Cash 44. – do – 3,50,000 23.09.2012 Cash 45. – do – 2,00,000 04.10.2012 Cash 46. – do – 110,000 11.10.2012 Cash 47. – do – 1,50,000 13.10.2012 Cash 48. – do – 1,00,000 22.11.2012 Cash

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD 3, EXEMP, NAGPUR, 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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income. The assessee being aggrieved, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A), on a perusal of Form no.35, observed that there is a delay of 405 days in filing the appeal before him. The assessee, while

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTION, 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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income. The assessee being aggrieved, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A), on a perusal of Form no.35, observed that there is a delay of 405 days in filing the appeal before him. The assessee, while

SHRI PRAVEEN MANOHAR GHODKHANDE,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2),, NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

u/s 271(1)(c). Facts of the case decide whether such a belief could be treated as bonafide or not. In other words, it can safely be held that if an assessee, disregarding all the relevant facts and circumstances, interprets a section that suits its interest then such interpretation cannot be held as bonafide belief. In the garb

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

35. Copy of notice of hearing dated 22/11/2023 36. Copy of reply filed in respect of proceedings U/s. 263 37. Copy of acknowledgment of e-proceedings response showing the details submitted by assessee 38. Copy of assessment order U/s. 147 dated 28/09/2021 in case of Antriksh Barter Pvt. Ltd. 39. Copy of acknowledgment of e-proceedings response showing the details

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

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

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

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order