HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay of 91 days in filing both the appeals and both the appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condone the delay of 91 days in filing both the appeals and both the appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condonation of delay to which the ld. DR did not object to appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts of the case

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

condonation of delay to which the ld. DR did not object to appeals are heard on merits. 3. The sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of AO levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act for delay in filing quarterly statement. 4. Brief facts of the case

JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

27,663/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering the entire penalty proceedings null and void. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation

M/S RAM SWARUP RUNGTA & BROTHERS,RANCHI vs. DCIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

Delay condoned. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is , accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 9. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents, we cancel the penalty levied of Rs. 11,24,721/- by the AO U/Sec.271(1)( c) of the Act and confirmed by the CIT-A. Accordingly, the grounds