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

section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., the notice failed to specify whether the penalty was imposed for concealment of income, furnishing inaccurate particulars, or both. As such the entire penalty proceeding is void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 4. For that Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have erred on facts

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 Sahayd.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 M/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

22,000/- (ix) Provisions for Executive Salary revision ₹ 1,25,10,67,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 2,06,13,64,500/- 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

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 Sahayd.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 M/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

22,000/- (ix) Provisions for Executive Salary revision ₹ 1,25,10,67,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 2,06,13,64,500/- 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

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

271(1)(c) as imposed by AO & sustained by CIT (A) on disallowances of following expenses on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. However, in the penalty order passed, there is no allegation of a single word, as to which particulars of such expenses were inaccurate. The appellant filed its detailed explanation with all facts which were not found incorrect

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED, 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

271(1)(c) as imposed by AO & sustained by CIT (A) on disallowances of following expenses on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. However, in the penalty order passed, there is no allegation of a single word, as to which particulars of such expenses were inaccurate. The appellant filed its detailed explanation with all facts which were not found incorrect

DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS 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

22,72,13,000/- (vi) CMPDIL expenses ₹ 43,53,60,000/- (viii) IICM Charges ₹ 2,35,40,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 97,77,17,000/- 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

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

22,000/- @ 150% of the tax sought to be evaded under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30/11/2017 on the ground 3 M/s CCL Vs DCIT that "the assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and to that extent it has concealed its income." 3. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee company filed appeal before

M/S NANDLAL KESHARDEO,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), RANCHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

u/s 274 of the Act does not refer to the charges of provision of Section 271 AAB of the Act makes the alleged notice defective and invalid and the deserves to be quashed. Since the penalty proceedings itself has been quashed the impugned penalty of Rs.64,22

SRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARDA,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT, C.C.-1, RANCHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sri Sanjay Kumar Sharda Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi / Barajamda, West Singhbhum, V/S. Jharkhand-833221. Pan No.Ahwps4875Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. SHRI KAMAL BHUSHAN, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

U/s 271(1)(c) r.w Expl 5A are being separately initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." No specific reason was mentioned by AO against the addition made nor was there any discussion made by AO regarding penalty proceedings upon the disclosure made. As such, the order imposing penalty

SRI MAKHAN LAL AGRWAL,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CIR-3, JSTR

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

22 -02-2019 ORDER PER BENCH: The captioned appeal filed by the assesee, is directed against order dated 20- 03-2018 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur in confirming the penalty of Rs. 49,79,239/-, which in turn arises out of penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c ) of the Income

DEVI KHEMKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2005-06 बनाम Devi Khemka Ito, Ward-2(4), Jamshedpur / C/O Sri Sajjan Khemka, New V/S. Baradwari, Sakchi, Jamshedpur Pan No.Acapk7053R अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

22-07-2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. S. Godara(Oral): This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06 arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur’s order dated 26.02.2019 passed in case No.81/JSR/2018-19 involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee

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

u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act. 9. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section

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

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. DR prayed to dismiss the grounds raised in appeal of the assessee by confirming the penalty imposed and confirmed by the AO and CIT-A respectively. 6. We have heard the rival submissions. We find the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Jeetmal Choraria in ITA 956/KOL/16

VAISNAVI AGRO,DEOGHAR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), DEOGHAR

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Vaishnavi Agro...................................................................................................Appellant Bandha Town Area, P.O. B. Deoghar – 814 112. Jharkhand. [Pan: Aaefv 0289 J Income Tax Officer...................…………………….....................................................Respondent Ward No. Iii(1), Deoghar. Appearances By: Shri M.K. Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Malik, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am

section 271(1)(c) were initiated against the assessee. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice issued for imposing penalty does not contain the specific charge against the assessee i.e. whether the assessee was guilty of having 2 I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 Vaisnavi Agro concealed particulars of income or to having

M/S VAISNAVI AGRO,DEOGHAR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), DEOGHAR

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Vaishnavi Agro...................................................................................................Appellant Bandha Town Area, P.O. B. Deoghar – 814 112. Jharkhand. [Pan: Aaefv 0289 J Income Tax Officer...................…………………….....................................................Respondent Ward No. Iii(1), Deoghar. Appearances By: Shri M.K. Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Malik, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am

section 271(1)(c) were initiated against the assessee. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice issued for imposing penalty does not contain the specific charge against the assessee i.e. whether the assessee was guilty of having 2 I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 Vaisnavi Agro concealed particulars of income or to having

SMT. SAROJ RAI,RANCHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

22,670/-, Rs.44,220/- & 2,55,050/- imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2010-2011 to 2013-14. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel filed a copy of the notices issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act dated 31.3.2015. Referring to the same, he P a g e 1 | 5 ITA Nos.62