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

158 (SC) allegedly on 'factual difference', without appreciating that the said case lays down proposition of law which still applies to the appellant's case. 2(c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) while upholding the penalty have erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant has filed an appeal

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

158 (SC) allegedly on 'factual difference', without appreciating that the said case lays down proposition of law which still applies to the appellant's case. 2(c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) while upholding the penalty have erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant has filed an appeal

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

158 (SC) allegedly on 'factual difference', without appreciating that the said case lays down proposition of law which still applies to the appellant's case. 2(c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) while upholding the penalty have erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant has filed an appeal

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

158 (SC) allegedly on 'factual difference', without appreciating that the said case lays down proposition of law which still applies to the appellant's case. 2(c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) while upholding the penalty have erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant has filed an appeal

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

158 (SC) allegedly on 'factual difference', without appreciating that the said case lays down proposition of law which still applies to the appellant's case. 2(c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) while upholding the penalty have erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant has filed an appeal

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

158 (SC) allegedly on 'factual difference', without appreciating that the said case lays down proposition of law which still applies to the appellant's case. 2(c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) while upholding the penalty have erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant has filed an appeal

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

158 (SC) allegedly on 'factual difference', without appreciating that the said case lays down proposition of law which still applies to the appellant's case. 2(c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) while upholding the penalty have erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant has filed an appeal

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

158 (SC) allegedly on 'factual difference', without appreciating that the said case lays down proposition of law which still applies to the appellant's case. 2(c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) while upholding the penalty have erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant has filed an appeal

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

158 (SC) allegedly on 'factual difference', without appreciating that the said case lays down proposition of law which still applies to the appellant's case. 2(c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) while upholding the penalty have erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant has filed an appeal

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

158 (SC) allegedly on 'factual difference', without appreciating that the said case lays down proposition of law which still applies to the appellant's case. 2(c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) while upholding the penalty have erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant has filed an appeal

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

158 (SC) allegedly on 'factual difference', without appreciating that the said case lays down proposition of law which still applies to the appellant's case. 2(c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) while upholding the penalty have erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant has filed an appeal

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.)

158 (SC) has held that no penalty should be imposed when the assessee adopts a bona fide view and has declared all the necessary particulars concerning the income in dispute. In the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Mahalaxmi Realtors, ITAT 'B' Bench, Pune has observed that, 'penalty cannot be imposed in a methodological manner but it can only be imposed

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.)

158 (SC) has held that no penalty should be imposed when the assessee adopts a bona fide view and has declared all the necessary particulars concerning the income in dispute. In the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Mahalaxmi Realtors, ITAT 'B' Bench, Pune has observed that, 'penalty cannot be imposed in a methodological manner but it can only be imposed

M/S. RUKMANI ENGINEERING WORKS, (NOW RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,ODISHA vs. THE DY. CIT- CIRCLE- KORBA,, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee firm being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Rukmani Engineering Works (Now Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Mig-384, Svbp Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) Pan: Aaifr4667G

158 found to be applicable, it is held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposable. In view of the above, the AO is directed to impose minimum penalty on tax sought to evaded on enhanced income of Rs.46,67,172/- (Rs.37,67,172/- + Rs. 9,00,000/-). 3. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

M/S SHARDA ENERGY & MINERALS LIMITED,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IMCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-1,RAIPUR-2, RAIPUR (CG)

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

158/- + 9,44,040/- + 64358/- amounting to Rs. 1,30,79,556/- and ignored the figure of incorrect claim of Rs. 4,16,02,936/- as worked out hereinabove. The learned AR during appellate proceedings has been specifically asked that MAT has been wrongly arrived and it had included the short term capital gain. He maintained that the case

TRIBHUWAN BAITHA,BHILAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE 1(1), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 160 & 161/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri Tribhuwan Baitha Dahilia-460, B- Block, Talpuri, C.G-490026 Pan : Adwpb3666Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

158. 3 Shri Tribhuwan Baitha Vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA Nos.160 & 161/RPR/2019 3. In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming penalty imposed of Rs. 17,900/- u/s 271(1)(c) by ld. Assessing Officer. 4. The appeal order is bad in law and on facts

TRIBHUWAN BAITHA,BHILAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE 1(1), BHILAI

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 160 & 161/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri Tribhuwan Baitha Dahilia-460, B- Block, Talpuri, C.G-490026 Pan : Adwpb3666Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

158. 3 Shri Tribhuwan Baitha Vs. ACIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA Nos.160 & 161/RPR/2019 3. In facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming penalty imposed of Rs. 17,900/- u/s 271(1)(c) by ld. Assessing Officer. 4. The appeal order is bad in law and on facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BHILAI vs. MESERS ABIS POULTRY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJNANDGAON

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233 & 234/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Abis Poultry Private Limited, Baldeo Bag, Rajnandgaon Pan No. :Aaeca 87411 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated. Consequently, additions of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- for the AY 2009-10 and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for the AY 2011-12 were made. 5. Against the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein the appeal was partly allowed