GAJANAN FERRO PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

84 to 86/Ran/2022 Gajanan Ferro P Ltd. Vs DCIT 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are illegal and unsustainable in law, in view of legal interpretation and the settled judicial pronouncement by various courts and benches of tribunals. 4. That without prejudice, by no stretch of imagination could

SHRI SACHIDANAND PRASAD,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. SRI MAHABIR PRASAD RUNGTA, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalea.Y. : 2012-2013 Sri Sachidanand Prasad, Vs The Principal Cit, 161, Thana No.745, Central, Patna Balijhoran, Nowamundi, West Singhbum-711102 Pan No. : Abwpp 8560 D Respondent (Appellant) .

84,160/- and made addition of Rs.1,52,036/- as 5% of the total expenditure on account of repair and maintenance. 4. Subsequently, the CIT having powers vested u/s.263 of the Act called for the records of the assessment proceedings and after examination the CIT found the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

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

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This