DCIT CIR-1, RANCHI vs. M/S JHARKHAND STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAC MARKETING AND PROCUREMENT FEDRATION LTD., RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue i

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-2012 Dcit, Cirlce-1, Ranchi Vs M/S The Jharkhand State Co-Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S The Jharkhand State Co- Vs Dcit, Cirlce-3, Ranchi Operative Lac Marketing & Procurement Fed. Ltd. Jhascolampf Building Purulia Road, Bharatpuri, Ranchi-834001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Nitin Pasari, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2018

u/s 10(27) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Merely because another Samity or similarly situated Society did not claim exemption does not in any manner restrict the claim of the Appellant barred, on the contrary the requirement under Section 10(27) of the Act is being stretched too far by the Assessing Officer. VII. FOR THAT the Learned Appellate Authority

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

SIDHI VINAYAK METCOM LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysidhi Vinayak Metcom Limited, A.C.I.T., C-2, 2Nd Floor, Basant Jamini Road, Jamshedpur. Vs. Contractors Area, Bistupur-831001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaics 3599 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

27 1AAB was initiated. However, no sub-section on clause under the subs-section was ever specified in the assessment order. The extract thereof is as under: [Penalty u/s 271AAB Is Initiated for concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 5,50,06,383/-) Rather the assessment order suggested that the penalty was initiated for "concealment" of Income when

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

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

27-02-2018 Date of pronouncement : 01-03-2018 ORDER PER BENCH: First, we shall take up the appeal in ITA No.118/Ran/16 ITA No.118/Ran/16 2. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 3, Patna dt. 17-02-2016 for the A.Y 2007-08, wherein he confirmed the penalty

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

section 142(1) of the Act, dated 20.06.2016, which were furnished by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings, the copy of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference: “Sub: Income Tax assessment in your case AY 2012-13 notice u/s 142(1) reg. Following details / explanations / clarifications may be furnished on or before

RAMESH KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. PR. CIT(C), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act on the ground that the said assessment order

RAMESH KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PATNA, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act on the ground that the said assessment order

PR. CIT (C), PATNA, PATNA vs. RAMESH KUMAR SINGH, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act on the ground that the said assessment order