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.)

section (1) of Sec.139 for filing of the assessee’s return of income, was at the stage of filing of the return of income/revised return of income by the assessee company a possible and plausible view, thus, the same in our view would not attract penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 22. We, thus, not being able

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

9 Vikas Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai explain that as to why penalty may not be imposed onhim under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act. 10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and are persuaded to subscribe to the claim of the Ld. AR that the A.O. in both

SMT. DIPALBEN MANISH PATEL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 215/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel 4-502, Near Maharashtra Mandal, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Alupp3271B

9 Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel Vs. ITO-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ‘concealment of income’ or ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ or both of the said defaults is not merely an idle formality but is a statutory obligation cast upon him, which we find had not been discharged in the present case as per the mandate

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act was provided in Section 275(1)(c) 9 Santosh Jain Vs. ITO-1(1

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act was provided in Section 275(1)(c) 9 Santosh Jain Vs. ITO-1(1

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act was provided in Section 275(1)(c) 9 Santosh Jain Vs. ITO-1(1

KHOMRAM CHANDRAWANSHI (HUF), ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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. 165/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Khomram Chandrawanshi (Huf) House No.18, Ring Road Chowk, Krishnasakha Society, Rohinipuram, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan : Aakhk2082E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

9 Khomram Chandrawanshi (HUF) Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur penalty u/s.271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed in its case, therefore, the assessee was not validly put to notice as regards the default/defaults for which it was called upon to explain that as to why penalty may not be imposed on it under Sec. 271(1

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

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

section 271(1)(c) is attracted. The minimum penalty imposed against such additions is confirmed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the return. Penalty imposed against other additions as discussed above is cancelled.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) 7. to the extent he had upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s