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

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

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

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

4) wherein it has been held that no specification of charge in the penalty notice leads to same becoming void and penalty on that count is to be deleted. Hon'ble Court held as under "S.271(1)(c): Penalty Concealment -Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income

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 271

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in light of discussions in the Assessment Order and therefore, the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was a valid notice in view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Ventura Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City-II [2020] 117 taxmann.com

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 Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income-tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other

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 Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income-tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other

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

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

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) is warranted. 7. The legislative intent behind provisions of section 271(1)(b) is to ensure that assessee complies with the requirement of notice issued either by furnishing details sought for or by explaining in line therewith. Thus the effective compliance eventually must enable the assessing officer to assess total income of the assessee

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

BHAVIKA GUNWANT PATEL,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

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

4. Before the Assessing Officer, during the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted that the addition was made on estimate basis and, therefore, no penalty can be levied. However, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty of ` 33,255, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) as well. The learned CIT(A), while

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

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

4. Order imposing penalty u/s 271D of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law in the absence of any satisfaction in the assessment proceedings in the case of assessee. 5. In levy of penalty u/s 271D on amount of Rs.6,51,000/- includes Rs.6,00,000/- paid by cheque by purchaser which is not in violation

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF, GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

u/s 200A is illegal and without jurisdiction.(iii)That in absence of provi. in the statute, the impugned order is invalid and bad in law. (iv)That the Ld. CIT- A has not considered the basic fact of charging of late fee with retrospective effect of the provi. of section 200A r.w.s. 234E and wrongly applied decisions of various Courts