PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

4). 25.01.2016 Demand notice u/s 156 was issued to the assessee giving effect to the order of amount ₹2,13,63,076/- 17/18th Jan. Settlement Commission had withdrawn Immunity from penalty and 2018 prosecution against the assessee 30.07.2018 Penalty order passed against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the act Imposing penalty leviable @ 100% amounting

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

4). 25.01.2016 Demand notice u/s 156 was issued to the assessee giving effect to the order of amount ₹2,13,63,076/- 17/18th Jan. Settlement Commission had withdrawn Immunity from penalty and 2018 prosecution against the assessee 30.07.2018 Penalty order passed against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the act Imposing penalty leviable @ 100% amounting

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

4). 25.01.2016 Demand notice u/s 156 was issued to the assessee giving effect to the order of amount ₹2,13,63,076/- 17/18th Jan. Settlement Commission had withdrawn Immunity from penalty and 2018 prosecution against the assessee 30.07.2018 Penalty order passed against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the act Imposing penalty leviable @ 100% amounting

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

4). 25.01.2016 Demand notice u/s 156 was issued to the assessee giving effect to the order of amount ₹2,13,63,076/- 17/18th Jan. Settlement Commission had withdrawn Immunity from penalty and 2018 prosecution against the assessee 30.07.2018 Penalty order passed against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the act Imposing penalty leviable @ 100% amounting

ASHOKA TUBEWELL BORING ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. The return filed under Section 153A is to be treated as a return under Section 139, and concealment must be judged against this return.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "132(1)", "153A", "132(4

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. SUBHASH PD. YADAV, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for concealment of income”. 5. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter imposed a penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty order is a very brief order, which reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) and Survey Operations u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

u/s 132(4) was made during the course of search and seizure. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without giving the opportunity of being heard which is against the principle of natural justice. The appellant has filed a time petition on 24.04.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) was in hurry to pass the order

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

section (4) has not been followed while passing the penalty order which is against the intention of legislature behind the introduction of new regime of penalty is to create less litigation environment. It is well settled law that substantive right accrue to the applicant should not be defeated citing the procedural defects which is capable of being cured

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

section (4) has not been followed while passing the penalty order which is against the intention of legislature behind the introduction of new regime of penalty is to create less litigation environment. It is well settled law that substantive right accrue to the applicant should not be defeated citing the procedural defects which is capable of being cured

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

section (4) has not been followed while passing the penalty order which is against the intention of legislature behind the introduction of new regime of penalty is to create less litigation environment. It is well settled law that substantive right accrue to the applicant should not be defeated citing the procedural defects which is capable of being cured

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

section (4) has not been followed while passing the penalty order which is against the intention of legislature behind the introduction of new regime of penalty is to create less litigation environment. It is well settled law that substantive right accrue to the applicant should not be defeated citing the procedural defects which is capable of being cured

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

section (4) has not been followed while passing the penalty order which is against the intention of legislature behind the introduction of new regime of penalty is to create less litigation environment. It is well settled law that substantive right accrue to the applicant should not be defeated citing the procedural defects which is capable of being cured

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

section (4) has not been followed while passing the penalty order which is against the intention of legislature behind the introduction of new regime of penalty is to create less litigation environment. It is well settled law that substantive right accrue to the applicant should not be defeated citing the procedural defects which is capable of being cured

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

132 of the Act. 4. Now the assessee is in further appeals before the Tribunal for all the three assessment years i.e. AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and raised the following issues:- (1) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the difference between income assessed and relief allowed

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

132 of the Act. 4. Now the assessee is in further appeals before the Tribunal for all the three assessment years i.e. AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and raised the following issues:- (1) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the difference between income assessed and relief allowed