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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14, 2014-15 and u/s 271AAA of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 to A.Y. 2012-13 vide orders evenly dated 30th July, 2018. 02. Since, common grounds have been raised for ITA Nos. 52, 53, 56 & 57/PAT/2021 against levy of penalty u/s 271

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14, 2014-15 and u/s 271AAA of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 to A.Y. 2012-13 vide orders evenly dated 30th July, 2018. 02. Since, common grounds have been raised for ITA Nos. 52, 53, 56 & 57/PAT/2021 against levy of penalty u/s 271

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14, 2014-15 and u/s 271AAA of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 to A.Y. 2012-13 vide orders evenly dated 30th July, 2018. 02. Since, common grounds have been raised for ITA Nos. 52, 53, 56 & 57/PAT/2021 against levy of penalty u/s 271

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14, 2014-15 and u/s 271AAA of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 to A.Y. 2012-13 vide orders evenly dated 30th July, 2018. 02. Since, common grounds have been raised for ITA Nos. 52, 53, 56 & 57/PAT/2021 against levy of penalty u/s 271

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

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

2,01,83,642/-. The assessee submitted before the Id.\nAO that the penalty proceedings may be dropped as it was suo motto\ndeclared in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act and there was no\nseizure of any incriminating material qua the said income during\nsearch. The plea of the assessee did not find favor with

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

2 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Subhash Pd. Yadav under section 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

RAINBOW PRODUCTS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act observed that; "It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee

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

271(1)(c) and levied penalty of Rs.1093704/-. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has only relied upon the A.O. order 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the Apex Court order in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar. The Apex Court order is not applicable in the present case as no disclosure statement

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

271(1)(c) and levied penalty of Rs.1093704/-. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has only relied upon the A.O. order 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the Apex Court order in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar. The Apex Court order is not applicable in the present case as no disclosure statement

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

271(1)(c) and levied penalty of Rs.1093704/-. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has only relied upon the A.O. order 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the Apex Court order in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar. The Apex Court order is not applicable in the present case as no disclosure statement

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

271(1)(c) and levied penalty of Rs.1093704/-. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has only relied upon the A.O. order 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the Apex Court order in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar. The Apex Court order is not applicable in the present case as no disclosure statement

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

2)(A) of the Act and secondly, since, the assessee has fulfilled the conditions of Section 270AA(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, assessee deserves immunity from imposition of penalty. 09. We will first take up the second fold of argument that the assessee deserves immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270AA of the Act and that case

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

2)(A) of the Act and secondly, since, the assessee has fulfilled the conditions of Section 270AA(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, assessee deserves immunity from imposition of penalty. 09. We will first take up the second fold of argument that the assessee deserves immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270AA of the Act and that case

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

2)(A) of the Act and secondly, since, the assessee has fulfilled the conditions of Section 270AA(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, assessee deserves immunity from imposition of penalty. 09. We will first take up the second fold of argument that the assessee deserves immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270AA of the Act and that case

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

2)(A) of the Act and secondly, since, the assessee has fulfilled the conditions of Section 270AA(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, assessee deserves immunity from imposition of penalty. 09. We will first take up the second fold of argument that the assessee deserves immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270AA of the Act and that case

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

2)(A) of the Act and secondly, since, the assessee has fulfilled the conditions of Section 270AA(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, assessee deserves immunity from imposition of penalty. 09. We will first take up the second fold of argument that the assessee deserves immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270AA of the Act and that case

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

2)(A) of the Act and secondly, since, the assessee has fulfilled the conditions of Section 270AA(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, assessee deserves immunity from imposition of penalty. 09. We will first take up the second fold of argument that the assessee deserves immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270AA of the Act and that case

M/S VATSA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 09/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 10/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Vatsa Constructions Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., Kasturba Path, North S.K. Circle-2, Puri, Patna-800013 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcv2236R Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2018 Order These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 06.10.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- ITA Nos. 09 & 10/Pat./2017 2 Vatsa Construction 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the AO had applied net profit rate of 8% without any reference to the provisions of Section