M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

2,37,61,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 1,71,18,14,440/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide the impugned penalty order imposed a penalty of ₹ 19,17

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

2,37,61,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 1,71,18,14,440/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide the impugned penalty order imposed a penalty of ₹ 19,17

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

2 and 3  The assessee carried on the business of mining and processing of iron ore and its sale and export. A survey was conducted under section 133A and information was collected under section 133/6). The statutory returns, which were filed by the assessee, when compared with the stock position, disclosed a difference of 3 lakh metric tons

M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.,,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

17,57,00,000/- M/s CCL Vs DCIT & 1 Anr. Sports Recreation (iv) Environmental Expenditure ₹ 3,97,00,000/- (v) Mines Closure Expenses ₹ 1,00,35,00,000/- (vi) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 49,38,00,000/- (vii) IICM Expenses ₹ 2,40,00,000/- (viii) CSR Expenses ₹ 13,66,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 1,87,87,00,000/- The penalty proceedings under

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

17,57,00,000/- M/s CCL Vs DCIT & 1 Anr. Sports Recreation (iv) Environmental Expenditure ₹ 3,97,00,000/- (v) Mines Closure Expenses ₹ 1,00,35,00,000/- (vi) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 49,38,00,000/- (vii) IICM Expenses ₹ 2,40,00,000/- (viii) CSR Expenses ₹ 13,66,00,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 1,87,87,00,000/- The penalty proceedings under

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

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.S. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271 (1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty

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

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

17-02-2016 for the A.Y 2007-08, wherein he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 11,24,721/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO. 3. The ld.AR submits that the issue raised in the appeal is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) is dependent upon the amount of tax sought to be evaded as 11 ITA No.56/Ran/2019 & ITA No.202/Ran/2019 Ajay Kumar Murarka, AY: 2011-12 contained in Explanation (1) and Explanation (4) to section 271(1). Since in the present case, the assessment has been held to be null and void ab initio, there is no occasion

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) is dependent upon the amount of tax sought to be evaded as 11 ITA No.56/Ran/2019 & ITA No.202/Ran/2019 Ajay Kumar Murarka, AY: 2011-12 contained in Explanation (1) and Explanation (4) to section 271(1). Since in the present case, the assessment has been held to be null and void ab initio, there is no occasion

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

section 275 since appeal filed for quantum was pending before Hon'ble ITAT for hearing. U. A.O. Imposed penalty without considering merits of the addition. 2. For that Ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding as per assessment order which states that - "that the penalty proceeding U/s 271 (1) (C) initiated". In the notice BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals of penalty

M/S BHARAT COOKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1, DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

section 275 since appeal filed for quantum was pending before Hon'ble ITAT for hearing. U. A.O. Imposed penalty without considering merits of the addition. 2. For that Ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding as per assessment order which states that - "that the penalty proceeding U/s 271 (1) (C) initiated". In the notice BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals of penalty

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

section 275 since appeal filed for quantum was pending before Hon'ble ITAT for hearing. U. A.O. Imposed penalty without considering merits of the addition. 2. For that Ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding as per assessment order which states that - "that the penalty proceeding U/s 271 (1) (C) initiated". In the notice BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals of penalty

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

section 275 since appeal filed for quantum was pending before Hon'ble ITAT for hearing. U. A.O. Imposed penalty without considering merits of the addition. 2. For that Ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding as per assessment order which states that - "that the penalty proceeding U/s 271 (1) (C) initiated". In the notice BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals of penalty

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIR-1 , DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

section 275 since appeal filed for quantum was pending before Hon'ble ITAT for hearing. U. A.O. Imposed penalty without considering merits of the addition. 2. For that Ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding as per assessment order which states that - "that the penalty proceeding U/s 271 (1) (C) initiated". In the notice BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals of penalty

M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED ,DHANBAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 , DHANBAD

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

section 275 since appeal filed for quantum was pending before Hon'ble ITAT for hearing. U. A.O. Imposed penalty without considering merits of the addition. 2. For that Ld. A.O. initiated penalty proceeding as per assessment order which states that - "that the penalty proceeding U/s 271 (1) (C) initiated". In the notice BCCL Vs ACIT & ors 5 appeals of 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)

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(1) of the Act, as noted above, the assessing officer, during the original assessment proceedings

ITO EXEMPTION WARD , JAMSHEDPUR vs. ALL INDIA WOMEN'S CONFERENCE , JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. At the outset, ld Authorised Representative of the assesse filed an order dated 12.10.2017 in the quantum appeal in ITA No.304 & 305/Ran/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 and submitted that as the very basis of addition regarding levy of penalty has been deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty deleted

JITENDRA SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

U/s 274 read with section 271 is vague and as such, initiation of proceedings is ab initio void. 2. For that the penalty of ₹ 4,07,070/- has been imposed against the total addition made for ₹ 13,17