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

Penalty u/s Amount 54/PAT/2021 2011-12 271AAA 36,48,167 55/AT/2021 2012-13 271AAA 25,47,388 52/PAT/2021 2009-10 271(1)(c) 1,93,52,140 53/PAT/2021 2010-11 271(1)(c) 1,13,77,978 56/PAT/2021 2013-14 271(1)(c) 90,09,772 57/PAT/2021 2014-15 271(1)(c) 1,33,60,445 013. We note that

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

Penalty u/s Amount 54/PAT/2021 2011-12 271AAA 36,48,167 55/AT/2021 2012-13 271AAA 25,47,388 52/PAT/2021 2009-10 271(1)(c) 1,93,52,140 53/PAT/2021 2010-11 271(1)(c) 1,13,77,978 56/PAT/2021 2013-14 271(1)(c) 90,09,772 57/PAT/2021 2014-15 271(1)(c) 1,33,60,445 013. We note that

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

Penalty u/s Amount 54/PAT/2021 2011-12 271AAA 36,48,167 55/AT/2021 2012-13 271AAA 25,47,388 52/PAT/2021 2009-10 271(1)(c) 1,93,52,140 53/PAT/2021 2010-11 271(1)(c) 1,13,77,978 56/PAT/2021 2013-14 271(1)(c) 90,09,772 57/PAT/2021 2014-15 271(1)(c) 1,33,60,445 013. We note that

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

Penalty u/s Amount 54/PAT/2021 2011-12 271AAA 36,48,167 55/AT/2021 2012-13 271AAA 25,47,388 52/PAT/2021 2009-10 271(1)(c) 1,93,52,140 53/PAT/2021 2010-11 271(1)(c) 1,13,77,978 56/PAT/2021 2013-14 271(1)(c) 90,09,772 57/PAT/2021 2014-15 271(1)(c) 1,33,60,445 013. We note that

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the\nAct for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16 is concerned we find that Id.\nCIT(A) has deleted the penalty observing as follows (relevant\nextract):\n\"It has been contended by the Appellant that the\nimpugned penalty has been imposed merely on the basis\nof estimated addition and that taxes were paid

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 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

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts of the case. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that no penalty is livable sustainable u/s 271(1)(b) in view of order of the Jurisdictional Tribunal directly on the issue which has been followed in umpteen

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts of the case. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that no penalty is livable sustainable u/s 271(1)(b) in view of order of the Jurisdictional Tribunal directly on the issue which has been followed in umpteen

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 142(1) of the Income- tax Act which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts of the case. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that no penalty is livable sustainable u/s 271(1)(b) in view of order of the Jurisdictional Tribunal directly on the issue which has been followed in umpteen

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 144/147 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21.12.2017 and 30.05.2018, respectively. Since the issues in both the appeals are related to the same assessee, both the appeals were heard together and I.T.A. Nos.: 261 & 262/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar. are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 144/147 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21.12.2017 and 30.05.2018, respectively. Since the issues in both the appeals are related to the same assessee, both the appeals were heard together and I.T.A. Nos.: 261 & 262/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar. are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience

YASHWANT SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

271(1)(b)\n22.12.2021\n12. He referring to the above chart has submitted that the last date of\npassing the penalty order was 30.06.2020. However, the impugned penalty\norder has been passed on 22.12.2021.\n12.1. The Ld. DR has also fairly admitted that the impugned penalty order\nis time barred.\n12.2. Similar is the position relating to the other assessment

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 15. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271F of the Act for non filing of ITR. 16. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in not providing the appellant the reason recorded for initiation of reassessment proceeding under Section

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices at the end of the assessee. Ultimately the ld. Assessing Officer gone through the books of account submitted before her and made these two additions by recording the following finding:- “Addition u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques:- On perusal of Books

VEENA MISHRA THROUGH NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT.CIR-1, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act in the fact and circumstances of this case and Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the same. 14. For that the ld. Assessing officer has erred in charging interest under the provisions of section 234A, 234B and 234C of the income