SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the A.O had in the aforesaid ‘Show cause’ notice(s), dated 30.12.2011 and 15.01.2013 failed to point out the specific defaults for which penalty u/s.271

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the A.O had in the aforesaid ‘Show cause’ notice(s), dated 30.12.2011 and 15.01.2013 failed to point out the specific defaults for which penalty u/s.271

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the A.O had in the aforesaid ‘Show cause’ notice(s), dated 30.12.2011 and 15.01.2013 failed to point out the specific defaults for which penalty u/s.271

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the A.O had in the aforesaid ‘Show cause’ notice(s), dated 30.12.2011 and 15.01.2013 failed to point out the specific defaults for which penalty u/s.271

SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD.,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the A.O had in the aforesaid ‘Show cause’ notice(s), dated 30.12.2011 and 15.01.2013 failed to point out the specific defaults for which penalty u/s.271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD.,, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the A.O had in the aforesaid ‘Show cause’ notice(s), dated 30.12.2011 and 15.01.2013 failed to point out the specific defaults for which penalty u/s.271

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the A.O had in the aforesaid ‘Show cause’ notice(s), dated 30.12.2011 and 15.01.2013 failed to point out the specific defaults for which penalty u/s.271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the A.O had in the aforesaid ‘Show cause’ notice(s), dated 30.12.2011 and 15.01.2013 failed to point out the specific defaults for which penalty u/s.271

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1)BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the A.O had in the aforesaid ‘Show cause’ notice(s), dated 30.12.2011 and 15.01.2013 failed to point out the specific defaults for which penalty u/s.271

THE SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE , 1(1)BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the A.O had in the aforesaid ‘Show cause’ notice(s), dated 30.12.2011 and 15.01.2013 failed to point out the specific defaults for which penalty u/s.271

THE DY. CIT- CIR.-1(1),, BILASPUR(CG) vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFILDS LTD.,, BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

10. Insofar the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned, we find that the same has been assailed before us on the ground that as the A.O had in the aforesaid ‘Show cause’ notice(s), dated 30.12.2011 and 15.01.2013 failed to point out the specific defaults for which penalty u/s.271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

10. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 11. At the threshold, we may herein refer to the peculiar facts involved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD., RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

10. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 11. At the threshold, we may herein refer to the peculiar facts involved

VIKAS SHARMA, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 256/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vikas Sharma Quarter No.6-A, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan : Ddcps1720P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

34,867/-. The A.O. at the time of culminating the assessment proceedings, initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. After the culmination of the assessment proceedings, the A.O. vide his order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 30.06.2018 imposed penalty of Rs.3,96,750/-. 3 Vikas Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai 4. Aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1.1. RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. RENU BEHL, RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.289/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

34 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 211 Taxman 178 (Punjab & Haryana)(MAG) it was held that "Assessee made disclosure during assessment proceeding under section 131(1) on 5-1-2006 and offered to 3 DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Smt. Renu Behl surrender amount attributable to him in investment in property. It was held that no immunity could be claimed by assessee

RAIGARH NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK MARYADIT,RAIGARH(CG) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s. 271(1)(c) alleging that the assessee had concealed its income OR furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, however, the same, thereafter, was imposed by him vide his order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated nil for both the defaults i.e. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In our considered view as both

RAIGARH NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK MARYADIT,RAIGARH(CG) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s. 271(1)(c) alleging that the assessee had concealed its income OR furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, however, the same, thereafter, was imposed by him vide his order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated nil for both the defaults i.e. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In our considered view as both

M/S RADHE SHYAM BENI SHYAM KESARY & COMPANY,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICDRF, WARDF 1(2), BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) M/S Radhe Shyam Beni Shyam Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur Kesary & Company, Dayalband, Nariyal Kothi, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan No. : Aahfr 1307 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

u/s 271 D of the Act because the reasonable cause for making these transaction was established by the assessee. Hence the penalty in question is deleted. The copy of the order is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal and ready reference. In view of above facts and circumstances, you are requested to kindly omit the penalty levied