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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 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

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 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

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 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

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 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

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T.-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 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

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. 14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us and after deliberating on the facts, are of the considered view, that the failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

271(1)(c) for levy of penalty on account of concealment of income by the assessee. It is to be noted that the penalty qua the addition’s u/s 68 effective from 01.04.2017 are to be initiated u/s 271AAC. Such error was identified by the Ld. PCIT, though, as the issue has been dealt with and decided

PRAKASH DAVARA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COIMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that now when the assessee had voluntarily offered an amount of Rs.30 lacs (supra) in his return of income that was filed in compliance to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 06.08.2012 there was no justification for the A.O to have imposed penalty as regards the said amount

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.)

14. We have thoughtfully considered the issue in the backdrop of the contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both parties. We are unable to concur with CO Nos. 19 & 20/RPR/2023 the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) that as the “book profit” of Rs.35.84 Crore (supra), which the assessee company had sought to get corrected in the assessment proceedings

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.)

14. We have thoughtfully considered the issue in the backdrop of the contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both parties. We are unable to concur with CO Nos. 19 & 20/RPR/2023 the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) that as the “book profit” of Rs.35.84 Crore (supra), which the assessee company had sought to get corrected in the assessment proceedings

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIEDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 314/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495006 Pan: Aadcs2066E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section 271F, section 271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

14 Santosh Jain Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 144, 146 & 148/RPR/2023 time limit for imposing penalties in residuary cases, i.e those which are not specifically covered by clause (a) and clause (b) to sub-section (1) of Section 275 of the Act. We, thus, are of a firm conviction, that now when the penalty u/s 271

SANTOSH JAIN, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 144, 146 & 148/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1993-94, 1994-95 & 1995-96 Santosh Jain Opp. P.N Tiwari, Gandhi Chowk, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Afypj6194D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

14 Santosh Jain Vs. ITO-1(1), Bhilai ITA Nos. 144, 146 & 148/RPR/2023 time limit for imposing penalties in residuary cases, i.e those which are not specifically covered by clause (a) and clause (b) to sub-section (1) of Section 275 of the Act. We, thus, are of a firm conviction, that now when the penalty u/s 271