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 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

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

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 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

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

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

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

AMIT KUMAR VERMA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 8. For that the order of the CIT (Appeal) and assessment order passed by the Id. Assessing officer is wrong, arbitrary and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and is bad in law as well as fact

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

2) of the Income Tax Act and he issued questionnaires also under section 142(1). The assessee did not respond to all those questionaries. The ld. Assessing Officer has to resort initiation of penalty for not responding to his notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has ultimately taken