M/S SHRI RAM POWER & STEEL PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIY, C.C.1, RANCHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2016-17

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing

JOKHIRAM DURGADUTT,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjokhiram Durgadutt, D.C.I.T., 9, J.D. Corporate, Behind J.D. High Circle-1, Vs. Street, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aabfj 2200 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

142/-. Hence, it is at best a revenue neutral matter hence penalty U/s 271(1)(c ) should not been imposed. 5. It has been held by the various judicial forums that whenever any addition and deletion in scrutiny the resulted income is nil then the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Few instances are given as follows :- 1

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961 are separately initiated on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." The above statement of the Assessing Officer IS not legally tenable due to the following reasons.- The AO has assumed that no such liability existed in the form of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs.3

SHRI NIRANJAN KUMAR AGARWAL,DHANBAD vs. ITO WD-2(1), DHANBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S Saini

section 142(1) / 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ***have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished in accurate particulars of such income. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 3.30 PM on 21.1.2016 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made u/s 271

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may be (in addition to tax, if any, payable imposed for a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure.” 11. We note that by way of issue of notice under section 142

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.12.2017 and 14.02.2019 respectively, for AY 2011-12. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form 36 are reproduced as under: “1. For that the proceedings being initiated u/s

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.12.2017 and 14.02.2019 respectively, for AY 2011-12. 2. Grounds raised by the assessee in the Memorandum of Appeal in Form 36 are reproduced as under: “1. For that the proceedings being initiated u/s

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

u/s 263 on simply change of opinion and only for re-verification. 5. For that other grounds, if any, will be argued/taken up at the time of hearing." 2. Facts in brief are that a search and seizure operation was conducted by the Income Tax Department under Section 132(1) of the Act in the business and residential premises

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

u/s 263 on simply change of opinion and only for re-verification. 5. For that other grounds, if any, will be argued/taken up at the time of hearing." 2. Facts in brief are that a search and seizure operation was conducted by the Income Tax Department under Section 132(1) of the Act in the business and residential premises

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

u/s 263 on simply change of opinion and only for re-verification. 5. For that other grounds, if any, will be argued/taken up at the time of hearing." 2. Facts in brief are that a search and seizure operation was conducted by the Income Tax Department under Section 132(1) of the Act in the business and residential premises